final environmental impact report national city …...icf international. 2016. volume 1: final...

National City Marine Terminal Tank Farm Paving and Street Closures Project & Port Master Plan Amendment

August 2016

UPD #EIR-2014-188; SCH# 2014121046

Final Environmental Impact Report

Volume I

VOLUME 1: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

NATIONAL CITY MARINE TERMINAL TANK FARM PAVING AND STREET CLOSURES PROJECT & PORT MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT

P R E P A R E D F O R :

San Diego Unified Port District 3165 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 92101 Contact: Anna Buzaitis (619) 686-7263

P R E P A R E D B Y :

ICF International 525 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Contact: Charlie Richmond (858) 444-3911

August 2016

ICF International. 2016. Volume 1: Final Environmental Impact Report for the National City Marine Terminal Tank Farm Paving and Street Closures Project & Port Master Plan Amendment. August. (ICF 00172.14.) San Diego, CA. Prepared for San Diego Unified Port District, San Diego, CA.

Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Overview .............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Certification of the Final EIR ............................................................................................ 1-1 1.3 Contents and Organization of the Final EIR ..................................................................... 1-2

Chapter 2 Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Project Components and Features .................................................................................. 2-1

2.1.1 Project Location ............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Former Tank Farm ............................................................................................................ 2-2 2.1.3 Street Closures ................................................................................................................. 2-2 2.1.4 Short-Term Use Permit Sites ............................................................................................ 2-3 2.1.5 Former Weyerhaeuser Site .............................................................................................. 2-3 2.1.6 Incorporation of District-Owned Uplands into the Port Master Plan and Port

Master Plan Amendment ................................................................................................. 2-3 2.1.7 Vehicle Processing ........................................................................................................... 2-4 2.1.8 Vessels.............................................................................................................................. 2-6 2.1.9 Rail ................................................................................................................................... 2-6 2.1.10 Project Construction ........................................................................................................ 2-7

2.2 Project Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 2-7 2.3 Impact Summary .............................................................................................................. 2-8 2.4 Areas of Known Controversy/ Issues Raised by Agencies and the Public ..................... 2-26

Chapter 3 Errata and Revisions................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 EIR Chapter/Section Clarifications ................................................................................... 3-1

Clarifications to Chapter ES, Executive Summary ............................................................ 3-1 3.2.1 Clarifications to Chapter 3, Project Description ............................................................. 3-17 3.2.2 Clarifications to Section 4.1, Air Quality and Health Risk .............................................. 3-19 3.2.3 Clarifications to Section 4.2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change, 3.2.4

and Energy Use .............................................................................................................. 3-20 Clarifications to Section 4.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................... 3-23 3.2.5 Clarifications to Section 4.7, Transportation, Circulation, and Parking ......................... 3-23 3.2.6 Clarifications to Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts ........................................................... 3-24 3.2.7 Clarifications to Chapter 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project ................................. 3-25 3.2.8

3.3 EIR Figures Clarifications ................................................................................................ 3-26 Clarifications to Figure 4.7-7, Location of Proposed Employee Parking Lot (I-3.3.1

Lot) ................................................................................................................................. 3-26

National City Marine Terminal Tank Farm Paving and Street Closures Project & Port Master Plan Amendment Volume 1: Final Environmental Impact Report

i August 2016

ICF 172.14

San Diego Unified Port District

Contents

Clarifications to Figure 4.7-8, Layout of Proposed Employee Parking Lot (I-3.3.2Lot) ................................................................................................................................. 3-27

3.4 EIR Appendices Clarifications ......................................................................................... 3-27 Clarifications to Appendix C, Draft Port Master Plan Amendment ............................... 3-27 3.4.1 Clarifications to Appendix H, Transportation and Parking Study .................................. 3-30 3.4.2 Inclusion of Appendix I, Conveyance Agreement Between San Diego Unified 3.4.3

Port District and City of National City ............................................................................ 3-30 Inclusion of Appendix J, Aerial photograph of Vehicles and Railcars Stored 3.5.1

West of West 32nd Street Terminus .............................................................................. 3-31

Chapter 4 Comments Received and District Responses ............................................................ 4-1 4.1 Public Draft EIR Distribution List ...................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Federal Agencies .............................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.2 State Agencies .................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.3 Regional and Local Agencies ............................................................................................ 4-2 4.1.4 Organizations ................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.2 Comments Received on the Draft EIR .............................................................................. 4-3 4.2.1 Letter A – United States Department of the Navy ........................................................... 4-5 4.2.2 Letter B – State Clearinghouse ...................................................................................... 4-11 4.2.3 Letter C – California Department of Transportation, CALTRANS ................................... 4-13 4.2.4 Letter D – California Coastal Commission ...................................................................... 4-15 4.2.5 Letter E – County of San Diego, Department of Environmental Health ........................ 4-36 4.2.6 Letter F – SANDAG ......................................................................................................... 4-42 4.2.7 Letter G – City of National City ...................................................................................... 4-44 4.2.8 Letter H – National City – The Chamber ........................................................................ 4-67 4.2.9 Letter I – Environmental Health Coalition ..................................................................... 4-68 4.2.10 Letter J – Dixieline .......................................................................................................... 4-83

Chapter MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ............................................ MMRP-1

Volume 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report (Volume 1 of 2 of the Draft EIR)

Volume 3 Draft Environmental Impact Report Technical Appendices (Volume 2 of 2 of the Draft EIR)


ii August 2016

ICF 172.14


Contents

Tables

Table Page

1-1 Document Organization and CEQA Requirements ....................................................................... 1-2

2-1 Criteria to Determine Theoretical Capacity .................................................................................. 2-5

2-2 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Vehicle Throughput for Project Site ................................ 2-6

2-3 Summary Impacts of Alternatives Relative to the Proposed Project ........................................... 2-8

2-4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................................... 2-9

4-1 Agencies and Organizations that Submitted Comment Letters on the Draft EIR ......................... 4-4


iii August 2016

ICF 172.14


Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations

µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter ARB California Air Resources Board BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe BPC Board of Port Commissioners CAP Climate Action Plan CDC Community Development Commission CDP Coastal Development Permit CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act dBA A-weighted decibel DEH Department of Environment Health District San Diego Unified Port District DPM diesel particulate matter ECDIS Electronic Chart Display Identification System EIR Environmental Impact Report g/s grams per second GHG greenhouse gas Harbor District Plan City of National City’s Harbor District Specific Area Plan HMD Hazardous Materials Division HRA health risk analysis I-5 Interstate 5 LCP Local Coastal Program Leq equivalent noise level MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MOU Memorandum of Understanding MTCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent NCMT National City Marine Terminal Overlay Marine Related Industrial Overlay Pasha Pasha Automotive Services PMPA Port Master Plan Amendment TRU Transport Refrigeration Unit SDUPD San Diego Unified Port District


iv August 2016

ICF 172.14

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Project Overview The San Diego Unified Port District (District) is considering an application by Pasha Automotive Services (Pasha) for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP), four Tideland Use and Occupancy Permit/Temporary Use Permit (short-term use permits) renewals, a new real estate agreement(s), and a Port Master Plan Amendment (PMPA) to increase the amount of area used for vehicle storage by Pasha in order to meet existing and anticipated future market demands. These discretionary approvals, which are required to implement the National City Marine Terminal (NCMT) Tank Farm Paving and Street Closures & Port Master Plan Amendment project (proposed project), would entail the following: (1) grading and paving the former NCMT tank farm; (2) closing, grading, and paving portions of Quay Avenue, 28th Street, and 32nd Street (street closures); (3) a new real estate agreement (i.e., a Tideland Use and Occupancy Permit, a Temporary Use Permit, or a lease) for the street closures and the former Weyerhaeuser site in the vicinity of the NCMT; (4) renewal of existing short-term use permits (i.e., Tideland Use and Occupancy Permits and Temporary Use Permits); and (5) a PMPA. The PMPA proposes to remove the street designations for the street closures from the Port Master Plan, redesignate the former streets as Marine Related Industrial, and incorporate District-owned Uplands Properties into the Port Master Plan. The PMPA proposes to designate the Uplands Properties as Commercial Recreation.

In addition, the proposed project includes a temporary overlay for a portion of the Uplands Properties (the eastern half of Lot K) and Port Parcel 028-007. The Marine Related Industrial Overlay (Overlay) would allow for the same uses specified in the Marine Related Industrial land use designation for a maximum of 7 years or until Commercial Recreational developments are approved by the Board of Port Commissioners (BPC), whichever occurs first. The Overlay would also be considered by the California Coastal Commission when reviewing the PMPA for certification.

1.2 Certification of the Final EIR The District is the Lead Agency, as defined under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15050, because it has principal responsibility for carrying out and approving the proposed project. As Lead Agency, the District also has primary responsibility for complying with CEQA. Therefore, the BPC, as the decision-making body of the District, is required to consider the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prior to approving the proposed project and issuing the CDP. Specifically, the Board must certify that:

The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA;

The Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the Lead Agency and the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the project; and

The Final EIR reflects the Lead Agency’s independent judgment and analysis. National City Marine Terminal Tank Farm Paving and Street Closures Project & Port Master Plan Amendment Volume 1: Final Environmental Impact Report

1-1 August 2016

ICF 172.14


Chapter 1. Introduction

Other agencies may use the information contained in this Final EIR when considering issuance or authorization of any other approvals for the project. The Final EIR, in compliance with Section 15132 of the State CEQA guidelines, includes the chapters and attachments listed under Section 1.3.

1.3 Contents and Organization of the Final EIR The content and format of this Final EIR are designed to meet the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, Article 9, and specifically State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132. Table 1-1 summarizes the organization and content of the Final EIR.

The Draft EIR that was previously circulated for public review is an integral part of the Final EIR; both documents are intended to be used together. The Draft EIR was not reprinted; however, a CD copy of the Draft EIR is enclosed with this Final EIR. A paper copy of the Draft EIR, including its appendices, is available at the District Clerk office at 3165 Pacific Highway, San Diego, CA 92101, during regular business hours, which are Monday through (every other) Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Table 1-1. Document Organization and CEQA Requirements

Location Contents

VOLUME I

Chapter 1 Introduction

Provides background on the proposed project, the requirements for a Final EIR and other related documents, and the organization of the Final EIR.

Chapter 2 Executive Summary

Briefly summarizes the proposed project; identifies each significant effect, with proposed mitigation measures and alternatives that would reduce or avoid that effect; identifies the areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public; and summarizes the issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and how to mitigate the significant effects (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15123).

Chapter 3 Revisions to the Draft EIR

Includes the revisions to the Draft EIR and its technical appendices (where appropriate), which were developed in response to comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR.

Chapter 4 Comments Received and District Responses

Includes a list of agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided comments on the Draft EIR during the public review period as well as the distribution list that was used to circulate the Draft EIR. Each comment is assigned a comment number, which corresponds to a response (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132).

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project is included as a chapter of the Final EIR. The MMRP is presented in table format and identifies mitigation measures for the proposed project, the party responsible for implementing the mitigation measures, the timing of implementing the mitigation measures, and the monitoring and reporting procedures for each mitigation measure.

VOLUME II

Draft EIR Volume II of the Final EIR contains the Draft EIR that was previously circulated for public review. The Draft EIR contains all the contents described within CEQA


1-2 August 2016

ICF 172.14


Chapter 1. Introduction

Location Contents

and the State CEQA Guidelines, Article 9. The Draft EIR is included on the enclosed CD, as Volume II of the Final EIR. A hard copy is available at the District Clerk’s office.

VOLUME III

Draft EIR Technical Appendices

Volume III of the Final EIR consists of Appendices A through H of the Draft EIR. The appendices include additional background information and technical detail for several of the resource areas. Also included are the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation and any comments received during the scoping process. The technical appendices to the Draft EIR are included on the enclosed CD, as Volume III of the Final EIR. A hard copy is available at the District Clerk’s office.

Under Separate Cover Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

Provides findings on each significant impact, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record, and also provide a written statement related to balancing, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project.


1-3 August 2016

ICF 172.14

Chapter 2 Executive Summary

2.1 Project Components and Features This section describes the characteristics of the proposed project (State CEQA Guidelines 15124(c)). The San Diego Unified Port District (District) is considering an application by Pasha Automotive Services (Pasha) for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP), four Tideland Use and Occupancy Permit/Temporary Use Permit (short-term use permits) renewals, a new real estate agreement(s), and a Port Master Plan Amendment (PMPA) to increase the amount of area used for vehicle storage by Pasha in order to meet existing and anticipated future market demands. These discretionary approvals, which are required to implement the National City Marine Terminal (NCMT) Tank Farm Paving and Street Closures & Port Master Plan Amendment project (proposed project), would entail the following: (1) grading and paving the former NCMT tank farm; (2) closing, grading, and paving portions of Quay Avenue, 28th Street, and 32nd Street (street closures); (3) a new real estate agreement (i.e., a Tideland Use and Occupancy Permit, a Temporary Use Permit, or a lease) for the street closures and the former Weyerhaeuser site in the vicinity of the NCMT; (4) renewal of existing short-term use permits (i.e., Tideland Use and Occupancy Permits and Temporary Use Permits); and (5) a PMPA. The PMPA proposes to remove the street designations for the street closures from the PMP, redesignate the former streets as Marine Related Industrial, and incorporate District-owned Uplands Properties into the Port Master Plan. The PMPA proposes to designate the Uplands Properties as Commercial Recreation.

In addition, the proposed project includes a temporary overlay for a portion of the Uplands Properties (the eastern half of Lot K) and Port Parcel 028-007. The Marine Related Industrial Overlay (Overlay) would allow for the same uses specified in the Marine Related Industrial land use designation for a maximum of 7 years or until Commercial Recreational developments are approved by the Board of Port Commissioners (BPC), whichever occurs first. The Overlay would also be considered by the California Coastal Commission when reviewing the PMPA for certification.

2.1.1 Project Location The proposed project location includes the former tank farm site, the street closures sites, the short-term use permit sites, the former Weyerhaeuser site, and District-owned Uplands Properties planned for incorporation into the PMP. The former tank farm site is generally bounded by Bay Marina Drive on the north, Quay Avenue on the east, 28th Street on the south, and the NCMT on the west. Quay Avenue, 28th Street, and 32nd Street are non-dedicated streets that serve principally as circulation roads for operations associated with NCMT. Bay Marina Drive is also the primary access road to and from Interstate 5 (I-5).

The Marine Related Industrial Overlay sites are located on two areas—the portion of Lot K east of the mean high tide line (is also one of the two Uplands Properties), and Port Parcel 028-007.


2-1 August 2016

ICF 172.14


Chapter 2. Executive Summary

2.1.2 Former Tank Farm The former tank farm site would be graded and paved. Approximately 22,500 cubic yards of excess dirt from grading the site may be used as fill on the adjacent Quay Avenue and 28th Street to match the surrounding grade. Alternatively, due to timing of the PMPA for the street closures, the excess dirt may be hauled offsite, as was conservatively analyzed in this EIR. The site would then be striped, followed by installation of polemounted and perimeter light fixtures and security fencing. The proposed project would also include improvements to the onsite drainage, such as bioswales to treat the surface drainage, new stormwater inlets, and modification of existing stormwater inlets. Minor demolition activities would include removal of fencing, curbs, gutters, and asphalt. Implementation of this project component would not include the construction of any buildings, and the site would remain designated as Marine Related Industrial by the PMP. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2016 and would be completed within 7 weeks. The former tank farm site is currently in Pasha’s Terminal Operating Agreement, which expires in 2040.

2.1.3 Street Closures The proposed project also proposes closure of Quay Avenue between Bay Marina Drive and 28th Street, 28th Street west of Quay Avenue, and 32nd Street west of Tidelands Avenue. The streets are between active terminal areas and, due to tenant consolidation and reconfiguration, are no longer necessary for access in this area of the NCMT. However, some marine terminal employees utilize these roadways for parking their personal vehicles during business hours. The roads proposed for closure are non-dedicated District streets.

Some of the excess soil from grading on the tank farm may be diverted as export and used to raise the elevation of the portions of Quay Avenue and 28th Street that are proposed to be closed. Quay Avenue and 28th Street would be repaved. Alternatively, due to timing of the PMPA for the street closures, the excess dirt may be hauled offsite, as was conservatively analyzed in this EIR. Approximately 1,200 cubic yards of demolished concrete and asphalt from the roadways would be exported off site to an approved facility for recycling. The railroad tracks on the west side of Quay Avenue and the existing above-ground SDG&E distribution lines (i.e., utility poles) would remain in place and be incorporated into the paved area. A minimum 10-foot clearance from the centerline of the railroad tracks would remain. Maintaining the railroad tracks would also require paving the rail area with asphalt per Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway Company Design Guidelines for Industrial Track Projects.

Closure of 32nd Street would require minor demolition and construction activities including the removal of the median, curbs, and gutter; relocation of the backflow valve; minor grading, repaving, and striping; and relocation of the guard shack to the east. Specific activities would include the removal of approximately 1,300 linear feet of curbs and gutters and approximately 2,200 square feet of median, and approximately 6,100 square feet of grading.

Implementation of this project component would not include the construction of any buildings; however, proposed land use changes from the Street designation to the Marine Related Industrial designation at these locations would require a PMPA as described under Section 3.4.5, Incorporation of District-Owned Uplands into the Port Master Plan and Port Master Plan Amendment Component, of the Draft EIR. Use of these street closures sites would involve potential new real estate agreement(s), which are anticipated to be for terms of up to 5 years; however, to provide a more


2-2 August 2016

ICF 172.14



conservative analysis, this EIR assumes that Pasha would use the street closure sites for the duration of the existing Terminal Operating Agreement—until 2040. The allowable use for these sites is proposed to be import, export, handling, and storage of motor vehicles and cargo.

2.1.4 Short-Term Use Permit Sites The proposed project also includes the potential renewal of short-term use permits on the lots identified in Table 2-1 of the Draft EIR, which all expired in 2015 and are now held on a holdover pursuant to the terms of the short-term use permits. These lots are currently in use by Pasha, and potential renewal of the use permits would continue the existing uses and operations, as indicated in Table 2-1 of the Draft EIR. Any proposed renewals of the existing short-term use permits would take effect following expiration or termination of the existing short-term use permits and would likely include a term of no more than 5 years. Furthermore, the Marine Related Industrial Overlay, discussed in more detail in 2.1.6 below, and Section 3.4.5 of the Draft EIR, proposes an overlay at two sites for a maximum of 7 years, at which point the sites would revert back to the Commercial Recreation land use designation only. The term of the renewals of the short-term use permits for these sites would be coterminous with this 7-year time period or could be terminated by the District upon delivery of a 30-day written notice. However, to provide a more conservative analysis, this EIR assumes that Pasha would use the existing short-term use permit sites for the duration of the existing Terminal Operating Agreement—until 2040. Any renewals of the existing short-term use permits would not change Pasha’s uses on the sites, but an increase in throughput is anticipated; therefore, the analysis in this EIR assumes a worst case scenario of the maximum practical throughput. No buildings or improvements are proposed on the short-term use permit sites.

2.1.5 Former Weyerhaeuser Site The proposed project includes a potential new real estate agreement (i.e., a Tideland Use and Occupancy Permit or a lease) for the approximately 6.14-acre former Weyerhaeuser site. This site is paved and contains two buildings, which may be demolished as part of the proposed project; one is an approximately 1,800-square-foot 1-story office building and the other is an approximately 20,000-square-foot shed structure. This potential new real estate agreement is anticipated to be for a term of up to 5 years; however, to provide a more conservative analysis, this EIR assumes that Pasha would use the former Weyerhaeuser site for the duration of the existing Terminal Operating Agreement—until 2040. The allowable use for this site is proposed to be import, export, handling, and storage of motor vehicles and cargo.

2.1.6 Incorporation of District-Owned Uplands into the Port Master Plan and Port Master Plan Amendment

A PMPA is required to incorporate two District-owned Uplands Properties into the PMP. Both Uplands Properties are located north of the marina— the eastern portion of Lot K is west of Marina Way; and Port Parcel 027-047 is east of Marina Way. These properties were incorporated into the City of National City’s Harbor District Specific Area Plan (Harbor District Plan) that is part of the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) and are designated as Tourist Commercial.

In 1997, the City’s Community Development Commission (CDC) and the District entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (Original MOU). The term of the Original MOU expired on June 30,


2-3 August 2016

ICF 172.14



1999. The Original MOU specified that the District would undertake a Port Master Plan update for tidelands located within the City and the CDC would conduct a Master Plan of the area between I-5 and Tidelands, which included the District-acquired Uplands. The two plans were intended to be coordinated. Accordingly, in 1998, the City amended the Harbor District Plan and incorporated the Upland Properties into the plan. In response to questions posed by the California Coastal Commission during the amendment process, the City asserted that the City and the District agreed “that during the term of the MOU, [the Upland Properties] will remain in National City’s planning and regulatory jurisdiction” (see Appendix D in Volume III of this Final EIR). Moreover, the certified Harbor District Plan states that the portion of Lot K that is part of the Uplands Properties remained in the City’s LCP jurisdiction pursuant to the terms of the Original MOU.

On January 18, 2000, the District and CDC entered into an Amended and Restated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which would have expired on November 30, 2001. Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, it superseded the Original MOU. The MOU specified that the District would undertake a PMPA of all property it owns or has real property interest in within the City limits collectively and all properties to be purchased and conveyed to the District that were not currently within the PMP. This included the Uplands Properties. The CDC agreed to conduct a master plan for the areas it contemplated to develop excluding any District-owned land. The District and CDC agreed that the District could use Port Parcel 028-007, and the District would make the property available to a qualified developer within 6 months after the CDC accepted a proposal for a use consistent with a commercial/recreation-zoned use and the District approved the same. Because the portion of Lot K that is part of the Uplands Properties had not yet been incorporated into the PMP as the MOU contemplated, the MOU specified that the District could use the land for maritime operations subject to being issued a Coastal Development Permit and other entitlements from the City. The MOU was amended on July 31, 2001. The amendment extended the term until November 31, 2003, but the provisions described above did not change. A second amendment to the MOU, which extended the term until August 31, 2005, was executed on March 3, 2004. The MOU expired on August 31, 2005.

The incorporation of the two Uplands Properties into the PMP would apply PMP land use designations to District-owned properties similar to the land use designation in the City’s LCP. Both Uplands Properties would be designated as Commercial Recreation.

2.1.7 Vehicle Processing If Pasha continued vehicle imports at the 2013 volumes (the baseline year for this EIR), the addition of the tank farm, street closures, and the former Weyerhaeuser sites, which total approximately 17.3 acres, could result in a potential increase of 39,565 vehicles per year and 136,351 vehicles for all of the project sites.1,2,3 However, this would assume zero growth in Pasha’s operations, which is unlikely. Therefore, to estimate the maximum theoretical capacity associated with the proposed project, the information in Table 2-1 was utilized.

1 17.3 acres x 2,287 vehicles/acre/year (361,372 vehicles ÷ 158 acres = 2,287 vehicles per acre) = 39,565 vehicles per year. 2 42.32 acres x 2,287 vehicles/acre/year = 96,786 vehicles per year on short-term permit sites. 3 39,565 vehicles/year + 96,786 vehicles/year = 136,351 vehicles per year.


2-4 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Table 2-1. Criteria to Determine Theoretical Capacity

Criteria Factor Source Vehicles per acre 154 vehicles/acrea Mercator 2013:47 Average dwell time in 2013 14.68 days Pasha Average estimated dwell timeb 10.9 days Mercator 2013:42 Total area in 2013 158 acres District a This is the maximum number of vehicles that could physically fit on an acre of land. b The average dwell time from 2008 to 2013 was 20.67 days. The average dwell time for the first 4 months of 2014 was 19.08 days. However, to be conservative, the analysis uses the projected average dwell time stated in Mercator (2013), which was less dwell time, resulting in greater throughput.

The area of the project site that is proposed to include project operations covers approximately 64.65 acres (tank farm + street closures + former Weyerhaeuser + existing short-term use permit sites), of which approximately 59.65 acres are usable for vehicle throughput.4 The maximum amount of vehicles that can be parked on 1 acre is 154 vehicles (Mercator 2013). Therefore, the maximum amount of vehicles that would fit on the 59.65 acres would be 9,186.5

Using the very conservative estimate of average dwell time from the Mercator report, the average projected dwell time would be 10.9 days for each vehicle. Therefore, based on the average projected dwell time, the maximum amount of vehicles on 59.65 acres would be 307,604 per year,6 or 5,157 vehicles per acre per year.7

As noted in Table 2-2, when compared to the existing operational conditions of 96,740 vehicles per year being processed on the existing short-term use permit sites, the proposed project would result in a potential throughput increase of 210,818 vehicle imports per year, for a total of 307,604.8

4 This acreage does not include the uplands property located east of Marina Way as no project operations currently exist nor are any proposed to exist on that site. 5 59.65 acres x 154 maximum vehicles/acre = 9,186 maximum vehicles for 59.65 acres at one time. 6 (9,186 vehicles x 365 days/year) ÷ 10.9 days dwell time = 307,604 vehicles per year. 7 307,604 vehicles/year ÷ 59.65 acres = 5,157 vehicles/acre/year. 8 307,604 maximum vehicles on the tank farm, street closures, and short-term use permit sites – 96,786 vehicles on the short-term use permit sites = 210,818 annual increase in vehicles with the proposed project. Note the total amount is slightly off due to rounding; however, the difference is within the margin of error as this is a maximum theoretical capacity forecast and unlikely to be achieved on the number of acres analyzed in this EIR.


2-5 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Table 2-2. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Vehicle Throughput for Project Site

Project Component Usable Acreage

Existing Vehicle Throughput

Proposed Vehicle Throughput

Potential Net Increase with Project

Tank Farm and Quay Avenue/28th Street Closures Sitesb

9.7 0 50,023 50,023

32nd Street Closure Site 1.51 0 7,787 7,787

Short-Term Use Permit Sites

42.3a 96,740 218,141 121,401

Former Weyerhaeuser Site

6.14 0 31,664 31,664

Total 59.65 96,740 307,604 210,818 Note, calculations have been rounded up and may not total correctly. a Approximately 5 acres of short-term use permit sites are not usable for vehicle storage (Mercator 2013:39) because they have other uses (i.e., maintenance, haul-away operations). b Quay Avenue and 28th Street are included with the tank farm site here because they are located adjacent to one another.

2.1.8 Vessels Vessel calls at the NCMT are an existing condition, and the quantity of vessel calls is not expected to change as a result of the project. The size of vessels calling at the terminal has increased over the years such that more vehicles can be transported with fewer ships. The average capacity of vessels that currently call on NCMT is 5,282 cars. On average the vessels that called in National City in year 2013 were only partially full, averaging 1,578 autos per vessel call, based on the 2013 throughput of 361,372 cars and 229 auto-carrier calls at the terminal (361,372 / 229 =1,578). Existing vessels range in size from 3,200 car capacity up to 6,700 car capacity, and larger class roll-on/roll-off carriers are entering the market that can carry over 8,000 autos. Therefore, because existing vessels are only loaded at a fraction of their capacity, existing vessel calls would have sufficient capacity to handle the additional throughput associated with the project. Thus, the frequency of vessel calls associated with the existing plus project future condition is anticipated to be similar to the existing condition, while loading and unloading would require a longer hotelling period—increasing from approximately 15.0 hours per vessel call to 21.5 hours with the project. A more detailed discussion of vessel calls and hoteling time is included in Section 4.1, Air Quality and Health Risk, of the Draft EIR.

2.1.9 Rail Trains servicing the NCMT and the surrounding marine related industrial land uses are operated by BNSF. Based on historical data, it is assumed that approximately 45% of the cars imported by vessel at NCMT would be transported via rail and the remainder would be transported by truck. Existing trains run 6 days per week (Monday through Saturday), and the project may result in a new train on Sunday.


2-6 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Pasha is currently in the process of adding a mobile railcar mover to provide switching work to break down and assemble trains at the NCMT. The railcar mover would handle some of the loading and switching duty at NCMT, which would reduce the hours locomotives are active at NCMT.

2.1.10 Project Construction Construction activities associated with the proposed project are generally minor and would be limited to the tank farm site, street closures sites, and within an approximately 1-acre portion of the 6.14-acre former Weyerhaeuser site where the two structures are located. No construction would take place on the short-term use permit sites or the Uplands Properties.

Construction activities are anticipated to take place in 2016 and would last approximately 7 weeks. Phasing would consist of site demolition of concrete and asphalt at all three locations; demolition of the 20,000-square-foot warehouse and 1,800-square-foot office at the former Weyerhaeuser site; soil excavation, compaction, and grading; utility infrastructure (e.g., storm drains and bioswales) at the tank farm and street closures sites; site paving; and finishing (e.g., striping, fencing, and lighting). Equipment that would be used includes a water truck, skip loader, large wheel loader, dozer, excavator with breaker, mechanical auger, small truck mounted crane, small loader with forks, and dump and haul trucks. Implementation of the project may be completed all at once, or the project may be completed in two phases beginning with the tank farm and former Weyerhaeuser site components, followed by the street closures sites.

2.2 Project Alternatives Alternatives analyzed in Chapter 7 (Alternatives) of the Draft EIR include the Redevelop NCMT Tank Farm Only (No Renewal of Short-Term Use Permits) Alternative, the Renew Short-Term Use Permits Only (No NCMT Tank Farm or Street Closures) Alternative, the Remove Port Parcel 028-007 from Project Alternative, the No Marine Related Industrial Overlay Alternative, and the No Project Alternative. Table 2-3 presents the impacts associated with the proposed project compared with the alternatives.


2-7 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Table 2-3. Summary Impacts of Alternatives Relative to the Proposed Project

Environmental Resource Proposed Project Determination Re

deve

lop

NCM

T Ta

nk F

arm

Onl

y (A

ltern

ativ

e 1)

Rene

w S

hort

-Te

rm U

se

Perm

its O

nly

(Alte

rnat

ive

2)

Rem

ove

Port

Pa

rcel

028

-007

fr

om P

roje

ct

(Alte

rnat

ive

3)

No

Mar

ine

Rela

ted

Indu

stri

al

Over

lay

(Alte

rnat

ive

4)

No

Proj

ect

(Alte

rnat

ive

5)

Air Quality and Health Risk

Less than Significant with Mitigation

Reduced Reduced Reduced Reduced Reduced

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change and Energy

Significant and Unavoidable


Hazards and Hazardous Materials


Similar Reduced Similar Similar Reduced

Noise and Vibration Less than Significant with Mitigation


Transportation, Circulation and Parking


Reduced Reduced Similar Similar Reduced

2.3 Impact Summary The proposed project would result in significant project impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and vibration and transportation and traffic. The project would contribute to cumulative impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Table 2-4 presents the significant impacts, the proposed mitigation measures, and the level of significance after mitigation.


2-8 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Table 2-4. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Issue Impact

Significance Before

Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)

Significance After

Mitigation 4.1 Air Quality and Health Risk Project Impacts Conflict with an Air Quality Management Plan

Impact-AQ-1: New Land Use Designations Not Accounted for in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) and State Implementation Plan (SIP). The proposed project would re-designate Streets to Marine Related Industrial and would add a temporary Marine Related Industrial Overlay onto two parcels that are not currently designated as Marine Related Industrial. As these two land use changes were not known at the time the RAQS and SIP were last updated, this would result in a conflict with the applicable state and regional air quality plan.

PS MM-AQ-1: Update the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) and State Implementation Plan (SIP) with New Growth Projections. Prior to the San Diego Air Pollution Control District’s (SDAPCD’s) next triennial review of the RAQS, the District shall coordinate with the SDAPCD to amend the growth assumptions using the Port Master Plan Amendment. This includes changing the designation of Streets to Marine Related Industrial and adding a Marine Related Industrial Overlay to two parcels within the proposed project site.

LS

Violate an Air Quality Standard

Impact-AQ-2: Emissions in Excess of NOX Thresholds During Operations. Project emissions during operations, before mitigation, would exceed the San Diego County SLTs for NOX at maximum capacity. While the incremental contribution to health effects from NOX cannot be traced solely to the proposed project, the contribution of project-related emissions is considered significant because the project would exceed thresholds that have been set by SDAPCD to attain the NAAQS and CAAQS, the purpose of which is to provide for the protection of public health.

PS MM-AQ-2: Implement Diesel-Reduction Measures During Construction and Operations. The project proponent shall implement the following measures during project construction and operations. i. The project proponent shall limit all construction

equipment, drayage, and delivery truck idling times by shutting down equipment when not in use and reducing the maximum idling time to less than 3 minutes. The project proponent shall install clear signage regarding the limitation on idling time at the delivery driveway and loading areas and shall submit quarterly reports of violators to the San Diego Unified Port District. This measure shall be enforced by Pasha supervisors, and repeat violators shall be subject to penalties pursuant to California airborne toxics control measure 13 California Code of Regulations Section 2485. The project proponent shall submit evidence of the use of diesel reduction measures to the San Diego

LS


2-9 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Issue Impact

Significance Before


Significance After

Mitigation Unified Port District through annual reporting with the first report due one year from the date of project completion and each report due exactly one year after, noting all violations with relevant identifying information of the vehicles and drivers in violation of these measures.

ii. The project proponent shall verify that all construction equipment is maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications. Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the project proponent shall verify that all equipment has been checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to admittance into any Pasha leasehold. The project proponent shall submit a report by the certified mechanic of the condition of the construction equipment to the San Diego Unified Port District prior to construction.

MM-AQ-3: Comply with San Diego Unified Port District Climate Action Plan Measures. Effective opening day, the project proponent shall implement the following measures to be consistent with the Climate Action Plan. Vessels shall comply with the San Diego Unified Port District’s voluntary vessel speed reduction program, which targets 80% compliance. The project proponent shall decrease onsite movements where practicable. No drive-through shall be implemented. Comply with Assembly Bill 939 by recycling at least 50% of solid waste. This measure shall be applied during construction and operation of the proposed project. Light fixtures shall be replaced with lower energy bulbs such as fluorescent, Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs), or Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFLs). Implementation of Climate Action Plan measures will


2-10 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Issue Impact

Significance Before


Significance After

Mitigation be included in all new real estate agreements and Coastal Development Permit(s) associated with this project. Evidence of implementation and compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the San Diego Unified Port District on an annual basis through 2040 (the end year of Pasha’s Terminal Operating Agreement). MM-AQ-4: Implement Vessel Speed Reduction Program Beyond Climate Action Plan Compliance. Every quarter following approval of the first real estate agreement or issuance of the first Coastal Development Permit associated with the project, whichever occurs first, the project proponent shall provide a report of the annual vehicle throughput to-date, and the projected total throughput for the following 6 months to the District’s Planning & Green Port Department. Prior to the annual vehicle throughput reaching 480,337 vehicles, which is an increase of 119,065 vehicles over the 2013 vehicle throughput total (361,372 vehicles), the project proponent shall implement vessel speed reduction measures to reduce the project’s net-new nitrogen oxide emissions. The program shall require that 90% of the [Pasha Automotive Services customer] vessels calling at National City Marine Terminal reduce their speeds to 12 knots starting at 40 nautical miles from Point Loma within the San Diego Air Basin. To be compliant with that speed limit, the vessel’s weighted average speed shall be 12 knots or less from the 40 nautical mile latitude and longitude positions on each respective route to/from Point Loma. Implementation of this vessel speed reduction program will be included in all new real estate agreements and Coastal Development Permit(s) associated with this project. The Project Applicant will record each inbound and outbound vessel move for compliance, and monthly records will be maintained. An annual report will be submitted to the District


2-11 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Issue Impact

Significance Before


Significance After

Mitigation indicating the monthly vessel totals, and compliance percentage for the quarter. Evidence of implementation and compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the District’s Planning & Green Port Department on an annual basis through 2040 (the end year of Pasha’s Terminal Operating Agreement). The District will verify compliance through analysis of Automatic Identification System (AIS) data or by requesting a vessel’s Electronic Chart Display Identification System (ECDIS) log from the captain. MM-AQ-5: Replace Gasoline/Diesel Passenger Van with Electric Passenger Van. Prior to January 1, 2020, the project proponent shall purchase and operate an electric passenger shuttle to be used for yard movement associated with vehicle storage operations.

Cumulatively Considerable Criteria Pollutant Contribution under an Ambient Air Quality Standard

Impact-AQ-2: Cumulative Emissions in Excess of NOX Threshold during Operations. Project emissions during operations, before mitigation, would exceed the San Diego County SLTs for NOX at maximum capacity, and when combined with other nearby past, present, and probable future projects, the project’s contribution would be cumulatively considerable. While the incremental contribution to health effects from NOX cannot be traced solely to the proposed project, the contribution of project-related emissions is considered significant because the project would exceed thresholds that have been set by SDAPCD to attain the NAAQS and CAAQS, the purpose of which is to provide for the protection of public health.

PS Implement MM-AQ-2 through MM-AQ-5 LS

Sensitive Receptors

Impact-AQ-2: Emissions in Excess of NOX Thresholds During Operations. Project emissions during operations, before

PS Implement MM-AQ-2 through MM-AQ-5 LS


2-12 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Issue Impact

Significance Before


Significance After

Mitigation mitigation, would exceed the San Diego County SLTs for NOX at maximum capacity. While the incremental contribution to health effects from NOX cannot be traced solely to the proposed project, the contribution of project-related emissions is considered significant because the project would exceed thresholds that have been set by SDAPCD to attain the NAAQS and CAAQS, the purpose of which is to provide for the protection of public health.

Objectionable Odors

Implementation of the proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

LS No mitigation is required. N/A

Project Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Conflict with an Air Quality Management Plan (Cumulative)

Impact-C-AQ-1: New Land Use Designations Not Accounted for in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) and State Implementation Plan (SIP). The proposed project would re-designate Streets to Marine Related Industrial and would add a Marine Related Industrial Overlay onto two parcels that are not currently designated as Marine Related Industrial. As these two land use changes were not known at the time the RAQS and SIP were last updated, this would result in a conflict with the applicable state and regional air quality plan.

PS Implement MM-AQ-1 LS

Consistency with Air Quality Standards (Cumulative)

Impact-C-AQ-2: Emissions in Excess of Cumulative NOX Thresholds During Operations. Emissions during operations would exceed the cumulative San Diego County SLTs for NOX at maximum capacity primarily due to vessel, train, and truck activity.

PS Implement MM-AQ-6 LS


2-13 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Issue Impact

Significance Before


Significance After

Mitigation 4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change, and Energy Use

Project Impacts Direct and Indirect Generation of GHGs by 2020

Impact-GHG-1: Project GHG Emissions through 2020. Project GHG during combined project construction and operational activities, before mitigation, the project would achieve a 3% reduction, which is inconsistent with the CAP’s reduction target of 33%. Additionally, the proposed project would only partially comply with plans, policies, and regulatory programs outlined in the Scoping Plan and adopted by ARB or other California agencies for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

PS MM-GHG-1: Implement Diesel-Reduction Measures During Construction and Operations. The project proponent shall implement the following measures during project construction and operations. i. The project proponent shall limit all construction

equipment, drayage, and delivery truck idling times by shutting down equipment when not in use and reducing the maximum idling time to less than 3 minutes. The project proponent shall install clear signage regarding the limitation on idling time at the delivery driveway and loading areas and shall submit quarterly reports of violators to the San Diego Unified Port District. This measure shall be enforced by Pasha supervisors, and repeat violators shall be subject to penalties pursuant to California airborne toxics control measure 13 California Code of Regulations Section 2485. The project proponent shall submit evidence of the use of diesel reduction measures to the San Diego Unified Port District through annual reporting with the first report due 1 year from the date of project completion and each report due exactly 1 year after, noting all violations with relevant identifying information of the vehicles and drivers in violation of these measures.

ii. The project proponent shall verify that all construction equipment is maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications. Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the project proponent shall verify that all equipment has been checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to admittance into any Pasha leasehold. The project proponent shall submit a report by the certified mechanic of the

LS


2-14 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Issue Impact

Significance Before


Significance After

Mitigation condition of the construction equipment to the San Diego Unified Port District prior to construction.

MM-GHG-2: Comply with San Diego Unified Port District Climate Action Plan Measures. Effective opening day, the project proponent shall implement the following measures to be consistent with the Climate Action Plan. Vessels shall comply with the San Diego Unified

Port District’s voluntary vessel speed reduction program, which targets 80% compliance.

The project proponent shall decrease onsite movements where practicable.

No drive-through shall be allowed. Assembly Bill 939 shall be complied with by

recycling at least 50% of solid waste. This measure shall be applied during construction and operation of the proposed project.

Light fixtures at the project site shall be replaced with lower energy bulbs such as fluorescent, LEDs, or CFLs.

Implementation of Climate Action Plan measures will be included in all real estate agreements associated with this project and the CDP. Evidence of implementation and compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the San Diego Unified Port District on an annual basis through 2040 (the end year of Pasha’s Terminal Operating Agreement). MM-GHG-3: Implement Vessel Speed Reduction Program Beyond Climate Action Plan Compliance. Every quarter following approval of the first real estate agreement or issuance of the first Coastal Development Permit associated with the project, whichever occurs first, the project proponent shall provide a report of the annual vehicle throughput to date, and the projected total throughput for the following 6 months to the San Diego Unified Port District’s Planning & Green Port Department. Prior to


2-15 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Issue Impact

Significance Before


Significance After

Mitigation the annual vehicle throughput reaching 480,337 vehicles, which is an increase of 119,065 vehicles over the 2013 vehicle throughput total (361,372 vehicles), the project proponent shall implement vessel speed reduction measures to reduce the project’s net-new greenhouse gas emissions. The program shall require that 90% of the [Pasha Automotive Services customer] vessels calling at the National City Marine Terminal reduce their speeds to 12 knots starting at 40 nautical miles from Point Loma within the San Diego Air Basin. To be compliant with that speed limit, the vessel’s weighted average speed shall be 12 knots or less from the 40 nautical mile latitude and longitude positions on each respective route to/from Point Loma. Implementation of this vessel speed reduction program will be included in all new real estate agreements and Coastal Development Permit(s) associated with this project. The Project Applicant will record each inbound and outbound vessel move for compliance, and monthly records will be maintained. An annual report will be submitted to the District indicating the monthly vessel totals, and compliance percentage for the quarter. Evidence of implementation and compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the San Diego Unified Port District’s Planning & Green Port Department on an annual basis through 2040 (the end year of Pasha’s Terminal Operating Agreement). The District will verify compliance through analysis of Automatic Identification System (AIS) data or by requesting a vessel’s Electronic Chart Display Identification System (ECDIS) log from the captain. MM-GHG-4: Replace Gasoline/Diesel Passenger Van with Electric Passenger Van. Prior to January 1, 2020, the project proponent shall purchase and operate an electric passenger shuttle to be used for yard movement associated with vehicle storage operations.


2-16 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Issue Impact

Significance Before


Significance After

Mitigation MM-GHG-5: Implement a Renewable Energy Project or Purchase the Equivalent Greenhouse Gas Offsets from a California Air Resources Board Approved Registry. The project proponent shall incorporate renewable energy into the leasehold or other areas within the San Diego Unified Port District or purchase greenhouse gas reduction credits as specified herein to achieve requisite reductions to meet the 2020 reduction target. This mitigation measure shall achieve at least 4,351 megawatt-hours per year (MWh/year) of renewable energy or the project proponent may purchase the equivalent amount of greenhouse gas offsets—an amount of 6,159 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e). This requirement would result in an annual reduction of 1,231.8 MTCO2e by 2020 and running through the life of the project. In order to achieve 2020 annual reduction target of 1,231.8 MTCO2e, the project proponent shall install and operate a renewable energy project that would achieve at least 4,351 MWh/year of renewable energy. Otherwise, the project proponent shall purchase the equivalent amount of greenhouse gas offsets, which is 6,159 MTCO2e. The renewable energy project may be submitted to the San Diego Unified Port District as late as January 1, 2018 (no later, but may be submitted sooner) in order to consider the latest advancements in energy technology and future regulatory requirements and must be operational by January 1, 2020. Because it is unknown how “solar ready” the available rooftop areas are within the leasehold, once at the design phase, the renewable energy project may be determined infeasible. Should this determination of infeasibility be made by the San Diego Unified Port District after considering evidence submitted by the project proponent related to any structural limitations (i.e., the rooftops cannot support a renewable energy


2-17 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Issue Impact

Significance Before


Significance After

Mitigation system), then two additional options are available. The San Diego Unified Port District shall either require the renewable energy project to be built off site (i.e., at a location not within the proponent leaseholds but within the San Diego Unified Port District’s jurisdiction) or shall require the proponent to purchase the equivalent amount of greenhouse gas offsets from sources listed on the American Carbon Registry and/or the Climate Action Reserve (or any other such registry approved by the California Air Resources Board). The selected option or a combination must achieve a total annual reduction of 1,231.8 MTCO2e, which would amount to 6,159 MTCO2e over 5 years (relative to the projected San Diego Gas and Electric power mix in 2020).

Direct and Indirect Generation of GHGs Beyond 2020

Impact-GHG-2: Project GHG Emissions Beyond 2020. Although proposed project emissions would be on a downward trajectory in the post-2020 period, the proposed project’s reduction in GHG emissions during combined project construction and operational activities, before mitigation, may not contribute sufficiently to post-2020 progress toward statewide 2030 and 2050 reduction targets and would not always be in compliance with plans, policies, and regulatory programs adopted by ARB or other California agencies for post-2020 for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

PS MM-GHG-6: Implement a Renewable Energy Project or Purchase the Equivalent Greenhouse Gas Offsets from a California Air Resources Board Approved Registry. The project proponent shall incorporate renewable energy into the leasehold or other areas within the San Diego Unified Port District or purchase greenhouse gas reduction credits as specified herein to achieve requisite reductions to meet the 2030 and 2040 reduction targets. This mitigation measure shall combine with MM-GHG-5 to achieve at least 12,095 megawatt-hours per year (MWh/year) of renewable energy or the project proponent may purchase the equivalent amount of greenhouse gas offsets—an initial amount of 14,262 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) by 2030 and a final amount of 25,554 MTCO2e by 2040. This requirement would result in an annual reduction of 1,462.2 MTCO2e by 2030 and 2,555.4 MTCO2e by 2040. 2030 Reduction Requirement. In order to achieve 2030 annual reduction target of 1,462.2 MTCO2e, the project proponent shall install and operate a renewable energy project that, combined with MM-GHG-5, would

SU


2-18 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Issue Impact

Significance Before


Significance After

Mitigation achieve at least 6,750 MWh/year of renewable energy (i.e., First Phase). Otherwise, the project proponent shall purchase the equivalent amount of greenhouse gas offsets, which is 7,131 MTCO2e by January 1, 2025. The First Phase of the renewable energy project may be submitted to the San Diego Unified Port District as late as January 1, 2023 (but no later) in order to consider the latest advancements in energy technology and future regulatory requirements, but may be submitted sooner and must be operational by January 1, 2025. 2040 Reduction Requirement. In order to achieve 2040 annual reduction target of 2,555.4 MTCO2e, the project proponent shall install and operate a renewable energy project that, combined with MM-GHG-5 and the First Phase, would achieve at least 12,095 MWh/year of renewable energy (i.e., Second Phase). Otherwise, the project proponent shall purchase the equivalent amount of greenhouse gas offsets, which is 25,554 MTCO2e by January 1, 2030. The Second Phase of the renewable energy project may be submitted to the San Diego Unified Port District as late as December 31, 2028 (but no later) in order to consider the latest advancements in energy technology and future regulatory requirements, but may be submitted sooner and must be operational by January 1, 2030. Because it is unknown how “solar ready” the available rooftop areas are within the leasehold, once at the design phase, the renewable energy project may be determined infeasible. Should this determination of infeasibility be made by the San Diego Unified Port District after considering evidence submitted by the project proponent related to any structural limitations (i.e., the rooftops cannot support a renewable energy system), then two additional options are available. The San Diego Unified Port District shall either require the renewable energy project to be built off site (i.e., at a location not within the proponent leaseholds but


2-19 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Issue Impact

Significance Before


Significance After

Mitigation within the San Diego Unified Port District’s jurisdiction) or shall require the proponent to purchase the equivalent amount of greenhouse gas offsets from sources listed on the American Carbon Registry and/or the Climate Action Reserve (or any other such registry approved by the California Air Resources Board). The selected option or a combination of the above-mentioned options must achieve a total annual reduction of 1,426.2 MTCO2e beginning on January 1, 2025 and lasting until December 31, 2029. Beginning on January 1, 2030, the annual reductions must increase to 2,555.4 MTCO2e until the end of the project life in 2040. The aggregated annual reductions between 2025 and 2030 would amount to 7,131 MTCO2e (relative to the projected San Diego Gas and Electric power mix in 2030) and would increase to an aggregated amount of 25,554 MTCO2e between 2030 and 2040 (relative to the projected San Diego Gas and Electric power mix in 2040).

Effects from Climate Change on Project

Implementation of the proposed project would not place people or structures at substantial risk of harm due to predicted climate change effects, including sea level rise.


Wasteful, Inefficient, and Unnecessary Usage of Direct or Indirect Energy

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary usage of direct or indirect energy

LS No mitigation is required, though MM-GHG-1 through MM-GHG-6 reduces the project’s energy demand for fossil fuels.

N/A

Project Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Direct and Indirect Generation of GHGs Contributing to a Cumulative GHG Impact out to

Impact-C-GHG-1: Project GHG Emissions through 2020. Project GHG emissions during combined project construction and operational activities, before mitigation, would not achieve the CAP’s reduction target of 33% below unmitigated levels in 2020 and would only partially comply with plans,

PS Implement MM-GHG-1 through MM-GHG-5. LS


2-20 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Issue Impact

Significance Before


Significance After

Mitigation 2020 (cumulative)

policies, and regulatory programs outlined in the Scoping Plan and adopted by ARB or other California agencies for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

Direct and Indirect Generation of GHGs Contributing to a Cumulative GHG Impact Post-2020 (cumulative)

Impact-C-GHG-2: Project GHG Emissions Beyond 2020. Although proposed project emissions would be on a downward trajectory in the post-2020 period, the proposed project’s reduction in GHG emissions during combined project construction and operational activities, before mitigation, may not contribute sufficiently to post-2020 progress toward statewide 2030 and 2050 reduction targets and would be in non-compliance with plans, policies, and regulatory programs adopted by ARB or other California agencies for post-2020 for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

PS Implement MM-GHG-6. SU

4.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Project Impacts Release of Hazardous Materials

Impact-HAZ-1: Potential of Encountering Burn Ash from Former National City Dump. Because the exact boundaries of the former National City Dump are unknown, it is possible that during ground-disturbing activities at the tank farm site, street closures sites, or former Weyerhaeuser site, burn ash may be encountered. Without proper precautions and a safety and health plan in place, the disturbance of burn ash may result in inhalation or direct contact by construction workers.

PS MM-HAZ-1: Prepare a Site-Specific Site Safety and Health Plan to Address Potential Burn Ash Presence and Other Contaminants. Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, a site-specific site safety and health plan (prepared in accordance with CFR 1910.120 Appendix C) and a soil and groundwater management plan (prepared in accordance with CCR Title 22 and Title 27) is required to ensure that all soil disturbed or excavated at the site is screened for the presence of hazardous materials and appropriately characterized and disposed of or reused on site if determined to be suitable for reuse. As part of the site-specific safety and health plan, air monitoring shall be required to ensure fugitive emissions from any grading activities will not pose a risk to human health. These plans would be submitted

LS


2-21 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Issue Impact

Significance Before


Significance After

Mitigation to the District’s Planning & Green Port Department, and approval would be required prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities. The plans shall specify that in the event that indicators of burn ash material are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work shall cease and the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health’s Local Enforcement Agency shall be notified immediately and prior to any continuation of ground or soil work.

Project Contribution to Cumulative Impacts The proposed project’s contribution to cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality Project Impacts Water Quality Standards and Requirements

Implementation of the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

LS No mitigation is required N/A

Degrade Water Quality

Implementation of the proposed project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality.


Project Contribution to Cumulative Impacts The proposed project’s contribution to cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. 4.5 Land Use and Planning Project Impacts Conflict with Land Use Plans, Policies, and Regulations

Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.


Project Contribution to Cumulative Impacts The proposed project’s contribution to cumulative land use and planning impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.


2-22 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Issue Impact

Significance Before


Significance After

Mitigation 4.6 Noise and Vibration Project Impacts Generate noise levels in excess of established standards

Impact-NOI-1: Heavy Truck Idling Near Sensitive Noise Receptors. Trucks from the NCMT and its related operations are known to park and idle along residential streets in the project vicinity, causing a noise nuisance and potentially violating provisions of Chapter 11.34 of the City’s municipal code, Truck Idling and Parking Maneuvers near a School or Residence.

PS MM-NOI-1: Notify Trucks from NCMT and Related Operations that Idling on Residential Streets is Illegal. Signs shall be prominently posted, at all truck entrances and exits serving the various project sites (or otherwise placed strategically for maximum awareness), stating that truck parking and/or idling is prohibited on any residential street or within 100 feet of any school in the City of National City. Such prohibition shall also be included as part of any future agreements (e.g., short-term use permit) or Coastal Development Permits related to the proposed project.

LS

Groundborne Noise

Implementation of the proposed Project would not expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

LS No mitigation required N/A

Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels

Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project.


Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels

Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project.


Project Contribution to Cumulative Impacts The proposed project’s contribution to cumulative noise and vibration impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. 4.7 Transportation, Circulation, and Parking Project Impacts Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Ordinance, or

Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of



2-23 August 2016

ICF 172.14

San Diego Unified Port District Chapter 2. Executive Summary

Issue Impact

Significance Before


Significance After

Mitigation Policy effectiveness for the performance of the

circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit.

Hazards Because of a Design Feature or Incompatible Uses

Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).


Conflict with Emergency Access

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access.


Conflict with Alternative Transportation

Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.


Insufficient Parking

Impact-TRA-1: Insufficient On-Terminal Employee Parking. Parking is currently provided at the I-Lot on the NCMT; however, the current configuration would not provide sufficient parking for all employees across three shifts.

PS MM-TRA-1. Reconfigure I-Lot to Accommodate 455 Striped Parking Spaces. Concurrent with construction on any project component or issuance of a short-term agreement/new real estate agreement for the former Weyerhaeuser site, whichever is earlier, the project proponent shall restripe I-Lot to accommodate 455 standard vehicle parking spaces. Once completed, evidence indicating the completion of the striping shall be provided by the contractor or Project Applicant to the District, and the District shall be permitted to confirm the parking area is being used as designed and consistent with this mitigation measure. Should the I-Lot be used for anything other than employee parking, such as vehicle/cargo storage, the project proponent shall present a parking study, created by a qualified

LS


2-24 August 2016

ICF 172.14

San Diego Unified Port District Chapter 2. Executive Summary

Issue Impact

Significance Before


Significance After

Mitigation transportation planner or engineer, to the District showing that such uses are not resulting in a shortage of employee parking within the National City Marine Terminal boundaries and no employees are parking outside the terminal as a consequence.

Project Contribution to Cumulative Impacts The proposed project’s contribution to cumulative transportation, circulation, and parking impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. Notes: PS = Potentially significant; LS = Less than significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable; N/A = Not applicable


2-25 August 2016

ICF 172.14



2.4 Areas of Known Controversy/ Issues Raised by Agencies and the Public

Section 15123 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the Summary of an EIR to include areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency including issues raised by agencies and the public. The District circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to solicit agency and public comments on the scope and content of the environmental analysis to be included in the Draft EIR. Although CEQA only requires a 30-day NOP circulation period, the District voluntarily extended the period to 35 days, which began on December 12, 2014, and ended on January 15, 2015. Subsequent to this scoping period, the project proponent modified the project application to include closure and repaving of a portion of 32nd Street and use of the former Weyerhaeuser site. In addition, in response to comments received during the scoping period, the District included the Uplands Properties, as part of the PMPA, as well as the Marine Related Industrial Overlay at Port Parcel 028-007 and the portion of Lot K (Port Parcel 025-010-D) located east of the mean high tide line. In response to requests by stakeholders to hold another round of scoping for the EIR, the District elected to conduct a second scoping period, which originally ran from August 20, 2015, to September 21, 2015; however, interested parties requested an extended scoping period and the District consequently extended the second scoping period to September 28, 2015, for a total second scoping period of 40 days. A total of 20 comment letters were received during the NOP public review periods. Comments received on the NOP included concerns related to effects on air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, noise, and transportation, traffic, and parking. A summary of all comments received is included in Table 1-2 of Chapter 1, Introduction, of the Draft EIR, and all NOP comment letters are included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR.

Comments received on the Draft EIR included many similar concerns to those received during the NOP public review period. They included comments on traffic, cumulative projects, air quality and health risk, hazardous materials, land use and planning, noise, and the proposed PMPA. The comment letters and the District’s responses are provided in Chapter 4, Comments Received and District Responses, of this Final EIR.

The Board of Port Commissioners will determine whether or not to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for approval of the project identifying the benefits of the project that outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts.


2-26 August 2016

ICF 172.14

Chapter 3 Errata and Revisions

3.1 Introduction This chapter reflects the clarifications to the Draft EIR that may have resulted from comments received during the 45-day public review of the Draft EIR or that were required for purposes of clarification. These modifications do not alter the conclusions of the environmental analysis such that new significant environmental impacts have been identified, nor do they constitute significant new information. The modifications are provided by chapter and indicated with the page number from the Draft EIR. This chapter is intended to be used in conjunction with the analysis contained within the Draft EIR (Volume II of the Final EIR) and the Draft EIR Appendices (Volume III of the Final EIR).

Additional text in this Final EIR is shown as underlined and deleted text is shown in strikethrough, whereas additional text in the PMPA is shown as double-underlined and deleted text is shown in double strikeout.

3.2 EIR Chapter/Section Clarifications Clarifications to Chapter ES, Executive Summary 3.2.1

Page ES-2 Revised description of former tank farm component of the proposed project to reflect a project change due to the timing of the proposed PMPA for the street closures. The revised description is as follows:

The former tank farm site would be graded and paved. Approximately 22,500 cubic yards of excess dirt from grading the site would may be used as fill on the adjacent Quay Avenue and 28th Street to match the surrounding grade. Alternatively, due to timing of the PMPA for the street closures, the excess dirt may be hauled offsite, as was conservatively analyzed in the EIR. The site would then be striped, followed by installation of polemounted and perimeter light fixtures and security fencing. The proposed project would also include improvements to the onsite drainage, such as bioswales to treat the surface drainage, new stormwater inlets, and modification of existing stormwater inlets. Minor demolition activities would include removal of fencing, curbs, gutters, and asphalt. Implementation of this project component would not include the construction of any buildings, and the site would remain designated as Marine Related Industrial by the PMP. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2016 and would be completed within 7 weeks. The former tank farm site is currently in Pasha’s Terminal Operating Agreement, which expires in 2040.

Page ES-3 Revised description of street closures component of the proposed project to reflect a project change due to the timing of the proposed PMPA for the street closures. The revised description is as follows:


3-1 August 2016

ICF 172.14


Chapter 3. Errata and Revisions

The proposed project also proposes closure of Quay Avenue between Bay Marina Drive and 28th Street, 28th Street west of Quay Avenue, and 32nd Street west of Tidelands Avenue. The streets are between active terminal areas and, due to tenant consolidation and reconfiguration, are no longer necessary for access in this area of the NCMT. However, some marine terminal employees utilize these roadways for parking their personal vehicles during business hours. The roads proposed for closure are non-dedicated District streets.

Some of the excess soil from grading on the tank farm would may be diverted as export and used to raise the elevation of the portions of Quay Avenue and 28th Street that are proposed to be closed. Quay Avenue and 28th Street would be repaved. Alternatively, due to timing of the PMPA for the street closures, the excess dirt may be hauled offsite, as was conservatively analyzed in the EIR. Approximately 1,200 cubic yards of demolished concrete and asphalt from the roadways would be exported off site to an approved facility for recycling. The railroad tracks on the west side of Quay Avenue and the existing above-ground San Diego Gas and Electric Company distribution lines (i.e., utility poles) would remain in place and be incorporated into the paved area. A minimum 10-foot clearance from the centerline of the railroad tracks would remain. Maintaining the railroad tracks would also require paving the rail area with asphalt per Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway Company Design Guidelines for Industrial Track Projects.


3-2 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Pages ES-15 to ES-19

Table ES-6. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Issue Impact

Significance Before


Significance After

Mitigation 4.1 Air Quality and Health Risk Project Impacts Conflict with an Air Quality Management Plan

Impact-AQ-1: New Land Use Designations Not Accounted for in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) and State Implementation Plan (SIP). The proposed project would re-designate Streets to Marine Related Industrial and would add a temporary Marine Related Industrial Overlay onto two parcels that are not currently designated as Marine Related Industrial. As these two land use changes were not known at the time the RAQS and SIP were last updated, this would result in a conflict with the applicable state and regional air quality plan.

PS MM-AQ-1: Update the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) and State Implementation Plan (SIP) with New Growth Projections. Prior to the San Diego Air Pollution Control District’s (SDAPCD) next triennial review of the RAQS, the District shall coordinate with the SDAPCD to amend the growth assumptions using the Port Master Plan Amendment. This includes changing the designation of Streets to Marine Related Industrial and adding a Marine Related Industrial Overlay to two parcels within the proposed project site.

LS

Violate an Air Quality Standard

Impact-AQ-2: Emissions in Excess of NOX Thresholds During Operations. Project emissions during operations, before mitigation, would exceed the San Diego County SLTs for NOX at maximum capacity. While the incremental contribution to health effects from NOX cannot be traced solely to the proposed project, the contribution of project-related emissions is considered significant because the project would exceed

PS MM-AQ-2: Implement Diesel-Reduction Measures During Construction and Operations. The project proponent shall implement the following measures during project construction and operations. i. The project proponent shall limit all construction

equipment, drayage, and delivery truck idling times by shutting down equipment when not in use and reducing the maximum idling time to less than 3 minutes. The project proponent shall install clear signage regarding the limitation on idling time at the delivery driveway and loading areas and shall submit quarterly reports of violators to the San

LS


3-3 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Issue Impact

Significance Before


Significance After

Mitigation thresholds that have been set by SDAPCD to attain the NAAQS and CAAQS, the purpose of which is to provide for the protection of public health.

Diego Unified Port District. This measure shall be enforced by Pasha supervisors, and repeat violators shall be subject to penalties pursuant to California airborne toxics control measure 13 California Code of Regulations Section 2485. The project proponent shall submit evidence of the use of diesel reduction measures to the San Diego Unified Port District through annual reporting with the first report due one year from the date of project completion and each report due exactly one year after, noting all violations with relevant identifying information of the vehicles and drivers in violation of these measures.


MM-AQ-3: Comply with San Diego Unified Port District Climate Action Plan Measures. Effective opening day, the project proponent shall implement the following measures to be consistent with the Climate Action Plan. Vessels shall comply with the San Diego Unified



3-4 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Issue Impact

Significance Before


Significance After

Mitigation The project proponent shall decrease onsite

movements where practicable. No drive-through shall be implemented. Comply with Assembly Bill 939 by recycling at

least 50% of solid waste. This measure shall be applied during construction and operation of the proposed project.

Light fixtures shall be replaced with lower energy bulbs such as fluorescent, Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs), or Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFLs).

Implementation of Climate Action Plan measures will be included in all new real estate agreements and Coastal Development Permit(s) associated with this project. Evidence of implementation and compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the San Diego Unified Port District on an annual basis through 2040 (the end year of Pasha’s Terminal Operating Agreement). MM-AQ-4: Implement Vessel Speed Reduction Program Beyond Climate Action Plan Compliance. Every quarter following approval of the first real estate agreement or issuance of the first Coastal Development Permit associated with the project, whichever occurs first, the project proponent shall provide a report of the annual vehicle throughput to-date, and the projected total throughput for the following 6 months to the District’s Planning & Green Port Department. Prior to the annual vehicle throughput reaching 480,337 vehicles, which is an increase of 119,065 vehicles over the 2013 vehicle throughput total (361,372 vehicles), the project proponent shall implement vessel speed reduction measures to reduce the project’s net-new nitrogen oxide emissions. The program shall require that 90% of the [Pasha Automotive Services customer]


3-5 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Issue Impact

Significance Before


Significance After

Mitigation vessels calling at National City Marine Terminal reduce their speeds to 12 knots starting at 40 nautical miles from Point Loma within the San Diego Air Basin. Due to the international border to the south and ARB limit for rulemaking 24 nautical miles from the coastline, some vessel calls travel within the San Diego Air Basin for less than 40 nautical miles. For those vessel calls that travel within the San Diego Air Basin for less than 40 nautical miles, vessel operators are required to reduce their speeds to 12 knots at the point those vessels enter the San Diego Air Basin and maintain speeds of 12 knots over the entire distance to/from Point Loma. To be compliant with that speed limit, the vessel’s weighted average speed shall be 12 knots or less from the 40 nautical mile latitude and longitude positions on each respective route to/from Point Loma. Implementation of this vessel speed reduction program will be included in all new real estate agreements and Coastal Development Permit(s) associated with this project. The Project Applicant will record each inbound and outbound vessel move for compliance, and monthly records will be maintained. An annual report will be submitted to the District indicating the monthly vessel totals, and compliance percentage for the quarter. Evidence of implementation and compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the District’s Planning & Green Port Department on an annual basis through 2040 (the end year of Pasha’s Terminal Operating Agreement). The District will verify compliance through analysis of Automatic Identification System (AIS) data or by requesting a vessel’s Electronic Chart Display Identification System (ECDIS) log from the captain. MM-AQ-5: Replace Gasoline/Diesel Passenger Van


3-6 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Issue Impact

Significance Before


Significance After

Mitigation with Electric Passenger Van. Prior to January 1, 2020, the project proponent shall purchase and operate an electric passenger shuttle to be used for yard movement associated with vehicle storage operations.

Pages ES-20 to ES-24

4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change, and Energy Use

Project Impacts Direct and Indirect Generation of GHGs by 2020

Impact-GHG-1: Project GHG Emissions through 2020. Project GHG during combined project construction and operational activities, before mitigation, the project would achieve a 3% reduction, which is inconsistent with the CAP’s reduction target of 33%. Additionally, the proposed project would only partially comply with plans, policies, and regulatory programs outlined in the Scoping Plan and adopted by ARB or other California agencies for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

PS MM-GHG-1: Implement Diesel-Reduction Measures During Construction and Operations. The project proponent shall implement the following measures during project construction and operations. i. The project proponent shall limit all construction

equipment, drayage, and delivery truck idling times by shutting down equipment when not in use and reducing the maximum idling time to less than 3 minutes. The project proponent shall install clear signage regarding the limitation on idling time at the delivery driveway and loading areas and shall submit quarterly reports of violators to the San Diego Unified Port District. This measure shall be enforced by Pasha supervisors, and repeat violators shall be subject to . The San Diego Unified Port District shall issue penalties pursuant to California airborne toxics control measure 13 California Code of Regulations Section 2485 for repeat violators. The project proponent shall submit evidence of the use of diesel reduction measures to the San Diego Unified Port District through annual reporting with the first report due 1 year from the date of project completion and each report due exactly 1 year after, noting all violations with relevant identifying information of

LS


3-7 August 2016

ICF 172.14



the vehicles and drivers in violation of these measures.


MM-GHG-2: Comply with San Diego Unified Port District Climate Action Plan Measures. Effective opening day, the project proponent shall implement the following measures to be consistent with the Climate Action Plan. Vessels shall comply with the San Diego Unified



No drive-through shall be allowed. Assembly Bill 939 shall be complied with by

recycling at least 50% of solid waste. This measure shall be applied during construction and operation of the proposed project.


Implementation of Climate Action Plan measures will be included in all real estate agreements associated with this project and the CDP. Evidence of implementation and compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the San Diego Unified Port District on an


3-8 August 2016

ICF 172.14



annual basis through 2040 (the end year of Pasha’s Terminal Operating Agreement). MM-GHG-3: Implement Vessel Speed Reduction Program Beyond Climate Action Plan Compliance. Every quarter following approval of the first real estate agreement or issuance of the first Coastal Development Permit associated with the project, whichever occurs first, the project proponent shall provide a report of the annual vehicle throughput to-date, and the projected total throughput for the following 6 months to the District’s Planning & Green Port Department. Prior to the annual vehicle throughput reaching 480,337 vehicles, which is an increase of 119,065 vehicles over the 2013 vehicle throughput total (361,372 vehicles), the project proponent shall implement vessel speed reduction measures to reduce the project’s net-new nitrogen oxide emissions. The program shall require that 90% of the [Pasha Automotive Services customer] vessels calling at National City Marine Terminal reduce their speeds to 12 knots starting at 40 nautical miles from Point Loma within the San Diego Air Basin. Due to the international border to the south and ARB limit for rulemaking 24 nautical miles from the coastline, some vessel calls travel within the San Diego Air Basin for less than 40 nautical miles. For those vessel calls that travel within the San Diego Air Basin for less than 40 nautical miles, vessel operators are required to reduce their speeds to 12 knots at the point those vessels enter the San Diego Air Basin and maintain speeds of 12 knots over the entire distance to/from Point Loma. To be compliant with that speed limit, the vessel’s weighted average speed shall be 12 knots or less from the 40 nautical mile latitude and longitude positions on each respective route to/from Point Loma. Implementation of this vessel speed reduction program will be included in all new real estate agreements and Coastal Development Permit(s) associated with this


3-9 August 2016

ICF 172.14



project. The Project Applicant will record each inbound and outbound vessel move for compliance, and monthly records will be maintained. An annual report will be submitted to the District indicating the monthly vessel totals, and compliance percentage for the quarter. Evidence of implementation and compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the District’s Planning & Green Port Department on an annual basis through 2040 (the end year of Pasha’s Terminal Operating Agreement). The District will verify compliance through analysis of Automatic Identification System (AIS) data or by requesting a vessel’s Electronic Chart Display Identification System (ECDIS) log from the captain. MM-GHG-4: Replace Gasoline/Diesel Passenger Van with Electric Passenger Van. Prior to January 1, 2020, the project proponent shall purchase and operate an electric passenger shuttle to be used for yard movement associated with vehicle storage operations. MM-GHG-5: Implement a Renewable Energy Project or Purchase the Equivalent Greenhouse Gas Offsets from a California Air Resources Board Approved Registry. The project proponent shall incorporate renewable energy into the leasehold or other areas within the San Diego Unified Port District or purchase greenhouse gas reduction credits as specified herein to achieve requisite reductions to meet the 2020 reduction target. This mitigation measure shall achieve at least 4,351 megawatt-hours per year (MWh/year) of renewable energy or the project proponent may purchase the equivalent amount of greenhouse gas offsets—an amount of 6,159 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e). This requirement would result in an annual reduction of 1,231.8 MTCO2e by 2020 and running through the life of the project. In order to achieve 2020 annual reduction target of 1,231.8 MTCO2e, the project proponent shall install and


3-10 August 2016

ICF 172.14



operate a renewable energy project that would achieve at least 4,351 MWh/year of renewable energy. Otherwise, the project proponent shall purchase the equivalent amount of greenhouse gas offsets, which is 6,159 MTCO2e. The renewable energy project may be submitted to the San Diego Unified Port District as late as January 1, 2018 (no later, but may be submitted sooner) in order to consider the latest advancements in energy technology and future regulatory requirements and must be operational by January 1, 2020. Because it is unknown how “solar ready” the available rooftop areas are within the leasehold, once at the design phase, the renewable energy project may be determined infeasible. Should this determination of infeasibility be made by the San Diego Unified Port District after considering evidence submitted by the project proponent related to any structural limitations (i.e., the rooftops cannot support a renewable energy system), then two additional options are available. The San Diego Unified Port District shall either require the renewable energy project to be built off site (i.e., at a location not within the proponent leaseholds but within the San Diego Unified Port District’s jurisdiction) or shall require the proponent to purchase the equivalent amount of greenhouse gas offsets from sources listed on the American Carbon Registry and/or the Climate Action Reserve (or any other such registry approved by the California Air Resources Board). The selected option or a combination must achieve a total annual reduction of 1,231.8 MTCO2e, which would amount to 6,159 MTCO2e over 5 years (relative to the projected San Diego Gas and Electric power mix in 2020).

GHG Emissions Post-2020

Impact-GHG-2: Project GHG Emissions Beyond 2020. Although proposed project emissions would be on a downward trajectory in the post-2020 period, the proposed project’s reduction in GHG emissions during combined project construction and

PS MM-GHG-6: Implement a Renewable Energy Project or Purchase the Equivalent Greenhouse Gas Offsets from a California Air Resources Board Approved Registry. The project proponent shall incorporate renewable energy into the leasehold or other areas within the San Diego Unified Port District or purchase greenhouse gas reduction credits as specified herein to

LS


3-11 August 2016

ICF 172.14



operational activities, before mitigation, may not contribute sufficiently to post-2020 progress toward statewide 2030 and 2050 reduction targets and would not always be in compliance with plans, policies, and regulatory programs adopted by ARB or other California agencies for post-2020 for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

achieve requisite reductions to meet the 2030 and 2040 reduction targets. This mitigation measure shall combine with MM-GHG-5 to achieve at least 12,095 megawatt-hours per year (MWh/year) of renewable energy or the project proponent may purchase the equivalent amount of greenhouse gas offsets—an initial amount of 14,262 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) by 2030 and a final amount of 25,554 MTCO2e by 2040. This requirement would result in an annual reduction of 1,462.2 MTCO2e by 2030 and 2,555.4 MTCO2e by 2040. 2030 Reduction Requirement. In order to achieve 2030 annual reduction target of 1,462.2 MTCO2e, the project proponent shall install and operate a renewable energy project that, combined with MM-GHG-5, would achieve at least 6,750 MWh/year of renewable energy (i.e., First Phase). Otherwise, the project proponent shall purchase the equivalent amount of greenhouse gas offsets, which is 7,131 MTCO2e by January 1, 2025. The First Phase of the renewable energy project may be submitted to the San Diego Unified Port District as late as January 1, 2023 (but no later) in order to consider the latest advancements in energy technology and future regulatory requirements, but may be submitted sooner and must be operational by January 1, 2025. 2040 Reduction Requirement. In order to achieve 2040 annual reduction target of 2,555.4 MTCO2e, the project proponent shall install and operate a renewable energy project that, combined with MM-GHG-5 and the First Phase, would achieve at least 12,095 MWh/year of renewable energy (i.e., Second Phase). Otherwise, the project proponent shall purchase the equivalent amount of greenhouse gas offsets, which is 25,554 MTCO2e by January 1, 2030. The Second Phase of the renewable energy project may be submitted to the San Diego Unified Port District as late as December 31, 2028 (but no later) in order to consider the latest


3-12 August 2016

ICF 172.14



advancements in energy technology and future regulatory requirements, but may be submitted sooner and must be operational by January 1, 2030. Because it is unknown how “solar ready” the available rooftop areas are within the leasehold, once at the design phase, the renewable energy project may be determined infeasible. Should this determination of infeasibility be made by the San Diego Unified Port District after considering evidence submitted by the project proponent related to any structural limitations (i.e., the rooftops cannot support a renewable energy system), then two additional options are available. The San Diego Unified Port District shall either require the renewable energy project to be built off site (i.e., at a location not within the proponent leaseholds but within the San Diego Unified Port District’s jurisdiction) or shall require the proponent to purchase the equivalent amount of greenhouse gas offsets from sources listed on the American Carbon Registry and/or the Climate Action Reserve (or any other such registry approved by the California Air Resources Board). The selected option or a combination of the above-mentioned options must achieve a total annual reduction of 1,426.2 MTCO2e beginning on January 1, 2025 and lasting until December 31, 2029. Beginning on January 1, 2030, the annual reductions must increase to 2,555.4 MTCO2e until the end of the project life in 2040. The aggregated annual reductions between 2025 and 2030 would amount to 7,131 MTCO2e (relative to the projected San Diego Gas and Electric power mix in 2030) and would increase to an aggregated amount of 25,554 MTCO2e between 2030 and 2040 (relative to the projected San Diego Gas and Electric power mix in 2040).

Pages ES-29 and ES-30

4.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials


3-13 August 2016

ICF 172.14

San Diego Unified Port District Chapter 3. Errata and Revisions

Project Impacts Release of Hazardous Materials

Impact-HAZ-1: Potential of Encountering Burn Ash from Former National City Dump. Because the exact boundaries of the former National City Dump are unknown, it is possible that during ground-disturbing activities at the tank farm site, street closures sites, or former Weyerhaeuser site, burn ash may be encountered. Without proper precautions and a safety and health plan in place, the disturbance of burn ash may result in inhalation or direct contact by construction workers.

PS MM-HAZ-1: Prepare a Site-Specific Site Safety and Health Plan to Address Potential Burn Ash Presence and Other Contaminants. Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, a site-specific site safety and health plan (prepared in accordance with CFR 1910.120 Appendix C) and a soil and groundwater management plan (prepared in accordance with CCR Title 22 and Title 27) is required to ensure that all soil disturbed or excavated at the site is screened for the presence of hazardous materials and appropriately characterized and disposed of or reused on site if determined to be suitable for reuse. As part of the site-specific safety and health plan, air monitoring shall be required to ensure fugitive emissions from any grading activities will not pose a risk to human health. These plans would be submitted to the District’s Planning and Green Port Department, and approval would be required prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities. The plans shall specify that in the event indicators of burn ash material are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work shall cease and the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health’s Local Enforcement Agency shall be notified immediately and prior to any continuation of ground or soil work.

LS

Pages ES-32 and ES-33

4.7 Transportation, Circulation, and Parking Project Impacts Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Ordinance, or Policy

Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation



3-14 August 2016

ICF 172.14


4.7 Transportation, Circulation, and Parking Project Impacts

system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit.

Hazards Because of a Design Feature or Incompatible Uses

Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).


Conflict with Emergency Access

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access.


Conflict with Alternative Transportation

Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.


Insufficient Parking

Impact-TRA-1: Insufficient On-Terminal Employee Parking. Parking is currently provided at the I-Lot on the NCMT; however, the current configuration would not provide sufficient parking for all employees across three shifts.

PS MM-TRA-1. Reconfigure I-Lot to Accommodate 455 Striped Parking Spaces. Concurrent with construction on any Prior to implementation of any project component (i.e., renewal of an existing short-term use permit, approval of theCDP for the tank farm, or issuance of a short-term agreement/new real estate agreement for the former Weyerhaeuser site), whichever is earlier, the project proponent shall restripe I-Lot to accommodate 455 standard vehicle parking spaces. Once completed, evidence indicating the completion of the striping shall be provided by the contractor or Project Applicant to

LS


3-15 August 2016

ICF 172.14


4.7 Transportation, Circulation, and Parking Project Impacts

the District, and the District shall be permitted to confirm the parking area is being used as designed and consistent with this mitigation measure. Should the I-Lot be used for anything other than employee parking, such as vehicle/cargo storage, the project proponent shall present a parking study, created by a qualified transportation planner or engineer, to the District showing that such uses are not resulting in a shortage of employee parking within the National City Marine Terminal boundaries and no employees are parking outside the terminal as a consequence.


3-16 August 2016

ICF 172.14


Clarifications to Chapter 3, Project Description 3.2.2

Page 3-3 Revised Section 3.4.1 to reflect a potential change to the tank farm component due to timing of the proposed PMPA for the street closures component. The revised description is as follows:

The former tank farm site would be graded and paved. Approximately 22,500 cubic yards of excess dirt from grading the site would may be used as fill on the adjacent Quay Avenue and 28th Street to match the surrounding grade. Alternatively, due to timing of the PMPA for the street closures, the excess dirt may be hauled offsite, as was conservatively analyzed in the EIR. The site would then be striped, followed by installation of polemounted and perimeter light fixtures and security fencing. The proposed project would also include improvements to the onsite drainage, such as bioswales to treat the surface drainage, new stormwater inlets, and modification of existing stormwater inlets. Minor demolition activities would include removal of fencing, curbs, gutters, and asphalt. Figures 3-1 through 3-4 show the conceptual paving and drainage plan, striping plan, demolition plan, and swale and fencing plan, respectively. Implementation of this project component would not include the construction of any buildings, and the site would remain designated as Marine Related Industrial by the PMP. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2016 and would be completed within 7 weeks. The former tank farm site is currently in Pasha’s Terminal Operating Agreement, which expires in 2040.

Page 3-4 Revised Section 3.4.2 to reflect a potential change to the street closures component due to the timing of the proposed PMPA for the street closures. The revised description is as follows:

The proposed project also proposes closure of Quay Avenue between Bay Marina Drive and 28th Street, 28th Street west of Quay Avenue, and 32nd Street west of Tidelands Avenue. The streets are between active terminal areas and, due to tenant consolidation and reconfiguration, are no longer necessary for access in this area of the NCMT. However, some marine terminal employees utilize these roadways for parking their personal vehicles during business hours. The roads proposed for closure are non-dedicated District streets.

Some of the excess soil from grading on the tank farm would may be diverted as export and used to raise the elevation of the portions of Quay Avenue and 28th Street that are proposed to be closed. Quay Avenue and 28th Street would be repaved. Alternatively, due to timing of the PMPA for the street closures, the excess dirt may be hauled offsite, as was conservatively analyzed in the EIR. Approximately 1,200 cubic yards of demolished concrete and asphalt from the roadways would be exported off site to an approved facility for recycling. The railroad tracks on the west side of Quay Avenue and the existing above-ground SDG&E distribution lines (i.e., utility poles) would remain in place and be incorporated into the paved area. A minimum 10-foot clearance from the centerline of the railroad tracks would remain. Maintaining the railroad tracks would also require paving the rail area with asphalt per BNSF Railway Company Design Guidelines for Industrial Track Projects.


3-17 August 2016

ICF 172.14


Pages 3-5 and 3-6 A reference to Appendix D was mistakenly cited as Appendix B-1, and further clarification has been provided regarding the Uplands Properties. The clerical error and clarifications have been updated below.

Incorporation of District-Owned Uplands into the PMP A PMPA is required to incorporate two District-owned Uplands Properties into the PMP (see Figure 3-5).5 Both Uplands Properties are located north of the marina— the eastern portion of Lot K is west of Marina Way; Port Parcel 027-047 is east of Marina Way. These properties were incorporated into the City of National City’s Harbor District Specific Area Plan (Harbor District Plan) that is part of the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) and are designated as Tourist Commercial.

In 1997, the City’s Community Development Commission (CDC) and the District entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (Original MOU). The term of the Original MOU expired on June 30, 1999. The Original MOU specified that the District would undertake a Port Master Plan update for tidelands located within the City and the CDC would conduct a Master Plan of the area between I-5 and Tidelands, which included the District-acquired Uplands. The two plans were intended to be coordinated.6 Accordingly, in 1998, the City amended the Harbor District Plan and incorporated the Upland Properties into the plan. In response to questions posed by the California Coastal Commission during the amendment process, the City asserted that the City and the District agreed “that during the term of the MOU, [the Upland Properties] will remain in National City’s planning and regulatory jurisdiction” (see Appendix DB-1). Moreover, the certified Harbor District Plan states that the portion of Lot K that is part of the Uplands Properties remained in the City’s LCP jurisdiction pursuant to the terms of the Original MOU.

On January 18, 2000, the District and CDC entered into an Amended and Restated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which would have expired on November 30, 2001.7 Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, it superseded the Original MOU. The MOU specified that the District would undertake a PMPA of all property it owns or has real property interest in within the City limits collectively and all properties to be purchased and conveyed to the District that were not currently within the PMP. This included the Uplands Parcels. The CDC agreed to conduct a master plan for the areas it contemplated to develop excluding any District-owned land. The District and CDC agreed that the District could use Port Parcel 028-007, and the District would make the property available to a qualified developer within 6 months after the CDC accepted a proposal for a use consistent with a commercial/recreation-zoned use and the District approved the same. Because the portion of Lot K that is part of the Uplands Properties had not yet been incorporated into the PMP as the MOU contemplated, the MOU specified that the District could use the land for maritime operations subject to being issued a Coastal Development Permit and other entitlements from the City. The MOU was amended on July 31, 2001.8 The amendment extended the term until November 31, 2003, but the provisions described above did not change. A second amendment to the MOU, which extended the term until August 31, 2005, was executed on March 3, 2004.9 The MOU expired on August 31, 2005.

The incorporation of the two Uplands Properties into the PMP would apply PMP land use designations to District-owned properties similar to the land use designation in the City’s LCP. Both Uplands Properties would be designated as Commercial Recreation. As stated in the draft PMPA (see below for revisions to Appendix C), it is intended that the PMPA would supersede any other conflicting local planning documents or regulation, including, without limitation, the City of National


3-18 August 2016

ICF 172.14


City’s Harbor District Specific Area Plan and associated zoning, for the area delineated in Planning District 5. Due to the proximity to Paradise Marsh, any future commercial development proposal on the Uplands Property located on Port Parcel 027-047 (east of Marina Way) shall establish a habitat buffer area to protect any wetlands, sensitive species, and the Paradise Marsh. The habitat buffer should be at least a 100-foot width from the edge of any delineated wetlands. A reduced width buffer would be allowed where it can be demonstrated that existing physical constraints preclude the 100-foot buffer and that the reduced buffer is adequate to protect any wetland resources from adverse impacts.

Clarifications to Section 4.1, Air Quality and Health Risk 3.2.3

Page 4.1-37 Revised text to provide further clarification on the mitigation measure.

…new cars.19 Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-2 and MM-AQ-3 are required by 2020 regardless ofthroughput to comply with the District Climate Action Plan (CAP), but Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-4 is required once the throughput trigger (approximately 119,014 net new cars) is met and would require the tenant to increase its compliance with the currently voluntary VSR program. More specifically, MM-AQ-4 requires 90% of the Pasha Automotive Services customer vessels calling at NCMT to reduce their speeds to 12 knots starting at 40 nautical miles from Point Loma. Due to the international border to the south and ARB limit for rulemaking 24 nautical miles from the coastline, some vessel calls travel within the San Diego Air Basin for less than 40 nautical miles. For those vessel calls that travel within the San Diego Air Basin for less than 40 nautical miles, vessel operators are required to reduce their speeds to 12 knots at the point those vessels enter the San Diego Air Basin and maintain speeds of 12 knots over the entire distance to/from Point Loma. To be compliant with that speed limit, the vessel’s weighted average speed shall be 12 knots or less from the 40 nautical mile latitude and longitude positions on each respective route to/from Point Loma.

Page 4.1-40 Revised Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-4 as follows to provide further clarification.

MM-AQ-4: Implement Vessel Speed Reduction Program Beyond Climate Action Plan Compliance. Every quarter following approval of the first real estate agreement or issuance of the first Coastal Development Permit associated with the project, whichever occurs first, the project proponent shall provide a report of the annual vehicle throughput to-date, and the projected total throughput for the following 6 months to the District’s Planning & Green Port Department. Prior to the annual vehicle throughput reaching 480,337 vehicles, which is an increase of 119,065 vehicles over the 2013 vehicle throughput total (361,372 vehicles), the project proponent shall implement vessel speed reduction measures to reduce the project’s net-new nitrogen oxide emissions. The program shall require that 90% of the [Pasha Automotive Services customer] vessels calling at National City Marine Terminal reduce their speeds to 12 knots starting at 40 nautical miles from Point Loma within the San Diego Air Basin. To be compliant with that speed limit, the vessel’s weighted average speed shall be 12 knots or less from the 40 nautical mile latitude and longitude positions on each respective route to/from Point Loma.


3-19 August 2016

ICF 172.14


Implementation of this vessel speed reduction program will be included in all new real estate agreements and Coastal Development Permit(s) associated with this project. The Project Applicant will record each inbound and outbound vessel move for compliance, and monthly records will be maintained. An annual report will be submitted to the District indicating the monthly vessel totals, and compliance percentage for the quarter. Evidence of implementation and compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the District’s Planning & Green Port Department on an annual basis through 2040 (the end year of Pasha’s Terminal Operating Agreement). The District may perform compliance spot checks on an annual basis by requesting a vessel’s Electronic Chart Display Identification System (ECDIS) log from the captain.

Clarifications to Section 4.2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 3.2.4Climate Change, and Energy Use

Page 4.2-37 Revised Footnote e in Table 4.2-8 to provide further clarification to MM-GHG-3. (Note, font is intentionally different from the body text.)

e Includes reductions associated with vessel speed reduction beyond 80% compliance starting in 2020. Includes VSR compliance of 90% (12 knot speed within 40 nautical miles of Point Loma) starting in 2020. More specifically, MM-GHG-3 requires that 90% of the Pasha Automotive Services customer vessels calling at NCMT reduce their speeds to 12 knots starting at 40 nautical miles from Point Loma. Due to the international border to the south and ARB limit for rulemaking 24 nautical miles from the coastline, some vessel calls travel within the San Diego Air Basin for less than 40 nautical miles. For those vessel calls that travel within the San Diego Air Basin for less than 40 nautical miles, vessel operators are required to reduce their speeds to 12 knots at the point those vessels enter the San Diego Air Basin and maintain speeds of 12 knots over the entire distance to/from Point Loma. To be compliant with that speed limit, the vessel’s weighted average speed shall be 12 knots or less from the 40 nautical mile latitude and longitude positions on each respective route to/from Point Loma.

Page 4.2-43 Revised Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1 as follows to provide further clarification.

MM-GHG-1: Implement Diesel-Reduction Measures During Construction and Operations. The project proponent shall implement the following measures during project construction and operations.

i. The project proponent shall limit all construction equipment, drayage, and delivery truckidling times by shutting down equipment when not in use and reducing the maximum idlingtime to less than 3 minutes. The project proponent shall install clear signage regarding thelimitation on idling time at the delivery driveway and loading areas and shall submitquarterly reports of violators to the San Diego Unified Port District. This measure shall beenforced by Pasha supervisors, and repeat violators shall be subject to . The San DiegoUnified Port District shall issue penalties pursuant to California airborne toxics controlmeasure 13 California Code of Regulations Section 2485 for repeat violators. The projectproponent shall submit evidence of the use of diesel reduction measures to the San DiegoUnified Port District through annual reporting with the first report due 1 year from the date


3-20 August 2016

ICF 172.14


of project completion and each report due exactly 1 year after, noting all violations with relevant identifying information of the vehicles and drivers in violation of these measures.

ii. The project proponent shall verify that all construction equipment is maintained andproperly tuned in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications. Prior to thecommencement of construction activities, the project proponent shall verify that allequipment has been checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running inproper condition prior to admittance into any Pasha leasehold. The project proponent shallsubmit a report by the certified mechanic of the condition of the construction equipment tothe San Diego Unified Port District prior to construction.

Page 4.2-44 Revised Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-3 as follows to provide further clarification.

MM-GHG-3: Implement Vessel Speed Reduction Program Beyond Climate Action Plan Compliance. Every quarter following approval of the first real estate agreement or issuance of the first Coastal Development Permit associated with the project, whichever occurs first, the project proponent shall provide a report of the annual vehicle throughput to-date, and the projected total throughput for the following 6 months to the District’s Planning & Green Port Department. Prior to the annual vehicle throughput reaching 480,337 vehicles, which is an increase of 119,065 vehicles over the 2013 vehicle throughput total (361,372 vehicles), the project proponent shall implement vessel speed reduction measures to reduce the project’s net-new nitrogen oxide emissions. The program shall require that 90% of the [Pasha Automotive Services customer] vessels calling at National City Marine Terminal reduce their speeds to 12 knots starting at 40 nautical miles from Point Loma within the San Diego Air Basin. To be compliant with that speed limit, the vessel’s weighted average speed shall be 12 knots or less from the 40 nautical mile latitude and longitude positions on each respective route to/from Point Loma.

Implementation of this vessel speed reduction program will be included in all new real estate agreements and Coastal Development Permit(s) associated with this project. The Project Applicant will record each inbound and outbound vessel move for compliance, and monthly records will be maintained. An annual report will be submitted to the District indicating the monthly vessel totals, and compliance percentage for the quarter. Evidence of implementation and compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the District’s Planning & Green Port Department on an annual basis through 2040 (the end year of Pasha’s Terminal Operating Agreement). The District may perform compliance spot checks on an annual basis by requesting a vessel’s Electronic Chart Display Identification System (ECDIS) log from the captain.

Page 4.2-54 and 4.2-55 Revised Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-6 as follows to provide further clarification.

MM-GHG-6: Implement a Renewable Energy Project or Purchase the Equivalent Greenhouse Gas Offsets from a California Air Resources Board Approved Registry. The project proponent shall incorporate renewable energy into the leasehold or other areas within the San Diego Unified Port District or purchase greenhouse gas reduction credits as specified


3-21 August 2016

ICF 172.14


herein to achieve requisite reductions to meet the 2030 and 2040 reduction targets. This mitigation measure shall combine with MM-GHG-5 to achieve at least 12,095 megawatt-hours per year (MWh/year) of renewable energy or the project proponent may purchase the equivalent amount of greenhouse gas offsets—an initial amount of 14,262 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) by 2030 and a final amount of 25,554 MTCO2e by 2040. This requirement would result in an annual reduction of 1,462.2 MTCO2e by 2030 and 2,555.4 MTCO2e by 2040.

2030 Reduction Requirement. In order to achieve 2030 annual reduction target of 1,462.2 MTCO2e, the project proponent shall install and operate a renewable energy project that, combined with MM-GHG-5, would achieve at least 6,750 MWh/year of renewable energy (i.e., First Phase). Otherwise, the project proponent shall purchase the equivalent amount of greenhouse gas offsets, which is 7,131 MTCO2e by January 1, 2025. The First Phase of the renewable energy project may be submitted to the San Diego Unified Port District as late as January 1, 2023 (but no later) in order to consider the latest advancements in energy technology and future regulatory requirements, but may be submitted sooner and must be operational by January 1, 2025.

2040 Reduction Requirement. In order to achieve 2040 annual reduction target of 2,555.4 MTCO2e, the project proponent shall install and operate a renewable energy project that, combined with MM-GHG-5 and the First Phase, would achieve at least 12,095 MWh/year of renewable energy (i.e., Second Phase). Otherwise, the project proponent shall purchase the equivalent amount of greenhouse gas offsets, which is 25,554 MTCO2e by January 1, 2030. The Second Phase of the renewable energy project may be submitted to the San Diego Unified Port District as late as December 31, 2028 (but no later) in order to consider the latest advancements in energy technology and future regulatory requirements, but may be submitted sooner and must be operational by January 1, 2030.

Because it is unknown how “solar ready” the available rooftop areas are within the leasehold, once at the design phase, the renewable energy project may be determined infeasible. Should this determination of infeasibility be made by the San Diego Unified Port District after considering evidence submitted by the project proponent related to any structural limitations (i.e., the rooftops cannot support a renewable energy system), then two additional options are available. The San Diego Unified Port District shall either require the renewable energy project to be built off site (i.e., at a location not within the proponent leaseholds but within the San Diego Unified Port District’s jurisdiction) or shall require the proponent to purchase the equivalent amount of greenhouse gas offsets from sources listed on the American Carbon Registry and/or the Climate Action Reserve (or any other such registry approved by the California Air Resources Board). The selected option or a combination of the above-mentioned options must achieve a total annual reduction of 1,426.2 MTCO2e beginning on January 1, 2025 and lasting until December 31, 2029. Beginning on January 1, 2030, the annual reductions must increase to 2,555.4 MTCO2e until the end of the project life in 2040. The aggregated annual reductions between 2025 and 2030 would amount to 7,131 MTCO2e (relative to the projected San Diego Gas and Electric power mix in 2030) and would increase to an aggregated amount of 25,554 MTCO2e between 2030 and 2040 (relative to the projected San Diego Gas and Electric power mix in 2040).


3-22 August 2016

ICF 172.14


Clarifications to Section 4.3, Hazards and Hazardous 3.2.5Materials

Page 4.3-15 Revised Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-1 as follows to provide further clarification about the contents of the Site-Specific Site Safety and health Plan.

MM-HAZ-1: Prepare a Site-Specific Site Safety and Health Plan to Address Potential Burn Ash Presence and Other Contaminants. Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, a site-specific site safety and health plan (prepared in accordance with CFR 1910.120 Appendix C) and a soil and groundwater management plan (prepared in accordance with CCR Title 22 and Title 27) is required to ensure that all soil disturbed or excavated at the site is screened for the presence of hazardous materials and appropriately characterized and disposed of or reused on site if determined to be suitable for reuse. As part of the site-specific safety and health plan, air monitoring shall be required to ensure fugitive emissions from any grading activities will not pose a risk to human health. These plans would be submitted to the District’s Planning & Green Port Department, and approval would be required prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities. The plans shall specify that in the event that indicators of burn ash material are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work shall cease and the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health’s Local Enforcement Agency shall be notified immediately and prior to any continuation of ground or soil work.

Clarifications to Section 4.7, Transportation, Circulation, 3.2.6and Parking

Page 4.7-28 Revised Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-1 as follows to provide further clarification.

MM-TRA-1. Reconfigure I-Lot to Accommodate 455 Striped Parking Spaces. Concurrent with construction on any Prior to implementation of any project component (i.e., renewal of an existing short-term use permit, approval of the CDP for the tank farm, or issuance of a short-term agreement/new real estate agreement for the former Weyerhaeuser site), whichever is earlier, the project proponent shall restripe I-Lot to accommodate 455 standard vehicle parking spaces. Once completed, evidence indicating the completion of the striping shall be provided by the contractor or Project Applicant to the District, and the District shall be permitted to confirm the parking area is being used as designed and consistent with this mitigation measure. Should the I-Lot be used for anything other than employee parking, such as vehicle/cargo storage, the project proponent shall present a parking study, created by a qualified transportation planner or engineer, to the District showing that such uses are not resulting in a shortage of employee parking within the National City Marine Terminal boundaries and no employees are parking outside the terminal as a consequence.


3-23 August 2016

ICF 172.14


Clarifications to Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts 3.2.7

Page 5-31

Table 5-7. Peak Hour Intersection LOS Results – 2016 Plus Project Conditions

# Intersection

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay w/o Project

(sec) AM/PM

LOS w/o

Project AM/PM

Change in Delay

(sec) Significant

Impact?

Avg. Delay (sec) LOS


1 19th Street/Tidelands Avenue 12.7 B 12.3 B 12.7/12.2 B/B 0.0/0.1 N

2 Bay Marina Drive/Quay Avenuea 12.0 B 10.2 B 11.3/10.5 B/B 0.7/-0.33 N

3 Bay Marina Drive/Tidelands Avenue 9.4 A 14.3 B 9.0/13.6 A/B 0.4/0.7 N

4 Bay Marina Drive/Marina Way 10.6 B 19.5 B 10.4/19.2 B/B 0.2/0.3 N

5 Bay Marina Drive/Cleveland Avenue 21.2 C 24.0 C 18.7/23.4 B/C 2.5/0.6 N

6 I-5 SB Off-Ramp andBay Marina Drive 15.3 B 30.2 C 14.8/23.9 B/C 0.5/6.2 N

7 I-5 NB On-Ramp and Bay Marina Drive 21.6 C 15.4

B 19.7/14.4 B/B 1.9/1.0 N

8 28th Street/ Quay Avenuea Intersection Removed With Proposed Project

9 28th Street/Tidelands Avenuea 9.9 A 9.9 A 9.6/9.8 A/A 0.3/0.1 N

10 32nd Street/Tidelands Avenueb 8.1 A 8.4 A 7.9/8.3 A/A 0.2/0.1 N

Source: Appendix G LOS = level of service; sec = seconds a Indicates one- or two-way stop controlled intersection; the delay shown is the worst delay experienced by any of the approaches. b Indicates all-way stop controlled intersection. c The Bay Marina Drive / Quay Avenue intersection will be converted from a four to a three legged intersection under the “with project” conditions. The removal of the south leg (Quay Avenue) of this intersection will decrease the number of vehicular conflicts and may result in better operations, even with the addition of project traffic. Note: Intersection signal timing was assumed to be optimized under Future Year conditions.


3-24 August 2016

ICF 172.14


Pages 5-34 and 5-35

Table 5-12. Peak Hour Intersection LOS Results – 2030 Plus Project Conditions

# Intersection

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay w/o Project

(sec) AM/PM

LOS w/o

Project AM/PM

Change in Delay

(sec) Significant

Impact?



1 19th Street/Tidelands Avenue 13.6 B 12.8 B 13.6/12.8 B/B 0.0/0.0 N

2 Bay Marina Drive/Quay Avenuea 11.6 B 11.2 B 12.1/11.3 B/B -0.5/-0.1c N

3 Bay Marina Drive/Tidelands Avenue 11.1 B 25.3 C 10.5/13.8 B/B 0.6/11.5 N

4 Bay Marina Drive/Marina Way 10.9 B 21.2 C 10.7/20.5 B/C 0.2/0.7 N

5 Bay Marina Drive/Cleveland Avenue 19.9 B 24.6 C 19.5/24.4 B/C 0.4/0.2 N

6 I-5 SB Off-Ramp andBay Marina Drive 17.2 B 34.4 C 16.3/23.8 B/C 0.9/10.7 N

7 I-5 NB On-Ramp and Bay Marina Drive

25.6 C 17.1 B 23.1/15.7 C/B 2.5/1.4 N

8 28th Street/ Quay Avenuea Intersection Removed With Proposed Project

9 28th Street/Tidelands Avenuea 10.0 A 11.4 B 9.7/11.1 A/B 0.3/0.3 N

10 32nd Street/Tidelands Avenueb 8.1 A 8.2 A 7.9/8.1 A/A 0.2/0.1 N

Source: Appendix G LOS = level of service; sec = seconds a Indicates one- or two-way stop controlled intersection; the delay shown is the worst delay experienced by any of the approaches. b Indicates all-way stop controlled intersection. c The Bay Marina Drive/Quay Avenue intersection will be converted from a four to a three legged intersection under the “with project” conditions. The removal of the south leg (Quay Avenue) of this intersection will decrease the number of vehicular conflicts and may result in better operations, even with the addition of project traffic. Note: Intersection signal timing was assumed to be optimized under Future Year conditions.

Clarifications to Chapter 7, Alternatives to the Proposed 3.2.8Project

Page 7-10 Revised text in Section 7.5.1.7 to provide further clarification.

7.5.1.7 Relationship to Project Objectives This alternative would only meet project Objective #6. It would not meet Objective #1 because Alternative 1 would not allow Pasha to meet future market demands if market demand exceeds the available storage area, which would be likely. It would not meet Objective #2 because it would limit economic benefits by substantially reducing the number of vehicles that can be stored at the areas


3-25 August 2016

ICF 172.14



beyond the NCMT. It would also not meet Objective #3 because if market demand does require vehicles beyond the storage capacity of this alternative, the additional vehicles may be imported to alternative locations or, given there are limited alternatives at the Port of San Diego, Pasha may leave the port altogether for a more accommodating arrangement at a competing port. Alternative 1 would only partially meet project Objective #4 because it would not allow Pasha to continue uses at marine related industrial sites that are consistent with the Public Trust Doctrine and there is no certainty these sites would be used in the near-term if Pasha is unable to use them. This alternative would also not meet Objective #5 because the Marine Related Industrial Overlay, which was proposed to be provided specifically to allow marine related industrial uses for up to 7 years or until a Commercial Recreation development is approved, would not be incorporated into the PMPA as part of this project alternative, so no marine related industrial uses would be allowed on the Overlay parcels under this alternative and less flexibility would be provided. Therefore, this alternative would not meet the project’s basic objectives.

3.3 EIR Figures Clarifications Clarifications to Figure 4.7-7, Location of Proposed 3.3.1

Employee Parking Lot (I-Lot) A new figure showing the location of the proposed employee parking lot and access to the lot was added in response to the U.S. Navy’s comment received on the Draft EIR.


3-26 August 2016

ICF 172.14


Clarifications to Figure 4.7-8, Layout of Proposed 3.3.2Employee Parking Lot (I-Lot)

This figure’s numbering changed from Figure 4.7-7 to Figure 4.7-8 to accommodate the insertion of a new Figure 4.7-7.

3.4 EIR Appendices Clarifications Clarifications to Appendix C, Draft Port Master Plan 3.4.1

Amendment

Page 57 Revised draft PMPA language to provide further clarification related to any future developments proposed at the subject parcel. (Note, revisions to the Draft PMPA are shown in double-underline.)

Marina The commercial recreation area shown on the Planning District Map is designed to accommodate the needs of workers in the nearby industrial area, people enjoying the nearby recreational park, and the adjacent marina and attendant commercial facilities. Uses could include a restaurant or coffee shop, convenience store, bait and tackle shop, boat slips and dry storage, lodging and other business activities consistent with public demand. Activities associated with the boat launch ramp, such as the sale and repair of trailered boats, boating equipment sales, water ski gear, and selected marine hardware, are appropriate uses.

The location and design of the commercial area, and possibly even its market feasibility, is dependent on improved access to Interstate 5. The additional traffic and increased activity in this presently isolated property would greatly enhance its attractiveness for commercial enterprise.

Acquired property located north of 32nd Street and east of the mean high tide line (east and west of Marina Way), is designated as Commercial Recreation. This property was previously identified for Commercial Tourist uses in the City of National City’s Harbor District Specific Area Plan.1

No commercial development is proposed at this time on either acquired property. Due to its proximity to Paradise March, any future commercial development proposal on the acquired property located east of Marina Way shall establish a habitat buffer area to protect any wetlands, sensitive species, and the Paradise Marsh. The habitat buffer shall be at least a 100-foot width from the edge of any delineated wetlands. A reduced width buffer is allowed where it can be demonstrated that existing physical constraints preclude the 100-foot buffer and that the reduced buffer is adequate to protect any wetland resources from adverse impacts.


3-27 August 2016

ICF 172.14



The western portion of the acquired property (west of Marina Way, east of the mean high tide line) may be utilized for marine related industrial uses on a short-term temporary basis (Temporary Overlay) until the earlier of the following occurs: (1) a development project, consistent with the Commercial Recreation designation, is proposed and approved by the Board of Port Commissioners, or (2) seven years from final approval of the Temporary Overlay (PMPA #XXX).

1 The National City Bayfront: Planning District 5 Precise Plan supersedes any other conflicting local planning documents or regulation, including, without limitation, the City of National City’s Harbor District Specific Area Plan and associated zoning, for the area delineated in Planning District 5.

Page 58 (Table 15) In response to Comment D-16 (see Chapter 4 of the Final EIR), revised draft PMPA language to clean-up outdated information not related to the Project. (Note, revisions to the Draft PMPA are shown in double-underline.)

12. AQUATIC CENTER: Construct and operate aquatic center facility, including restrooms, locker rooms, offices, classrooms, watercraft storage, paved exterior activity areas, security walls, fencing, lighting, and landscape improvements. Remove temporary classroom and storage facility and return pavement area to parking use.


3-28 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Figure 16 (Planning Subareas – Planning District 5 – National City Bayfront)


3-29 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Clarifications to Appendix H, Transportation and 3.4.2Parking Study

Page 51 Intersection Analysis

Table 6.2 displays intersection Level of Service and average vehicle delay results under Future Year Base conditions. Level of Service calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix K. It should be noted that signal timing was assumed to be optimized under Future Conditions.

Page 56 Intersection Analysis

Table 6.7 displays intersection Level of Service and average vehicle delay results under Future Year Plus Project conditions. Level of Service calculation worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix L. It should be noted that signal timing was assumed to be optimized under Future Conditions.

Inclusion of Appendix I, Conveyance Agreement 3.4.3Between San Diego Unified Port District and City of National City

Please see the complete Conveyance Agreement between the District and the City provided on the pages that follow.


3-30 August 2016

ICF 172.14

— - .-^^i^x E3ISTRIC

D O C U M E N T NIC

OmiCATE-DRIGINAl - - 2ei!w f - y ) MICROFILM NO 3

A G R E E M E N T

THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this J 2 ^ ^ ^

day of -7'=5:;̂ ^-t,̂ ,_^c_-<_iRr" , 1963, by and between The City of ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

National City, a municipal corporat ion, here inaf ter called "City",

and The Sa:n Diego Unified P o r t Dis t r ic t , a public corporat ion ,

es tabl ished pursuant to the provis ions of the San Diego Unified

P o r t Dis t r i c t Act, here inaf te r called "Dis t r ic t . "

W I T N E S S E T H :

WHEREAS, the San Diego Unified P o r t Dis t r i c t has been

c rea ted pursuan t to the provis ions of the San Diego Unified P o r t

Dis t r i c t Act; and

WHEREAS, Section 14 of said act provides for a conveyance

of ce r ta in tidelands and submerged lands by City to Dis t r i c t ; and

WHEREAS, City and Dis t r ic t a r e des i rous of defining the

lands to be t r ans fe r r ed , of clarifying the financial obligations of the

p a r t i e s , and of clarifying future re la t ions between Dis t r i c t and City;

and

WHEREAS, the adminis t ra t ive officials of the Dis t r i c t and

City have recommended the t e r m s of this Agreement to their r e s p e c

tive legis la t ive bodies ; NOW, THEREFORE, ,

IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED by the p a r t i e s he re to , as

follows:

That the t rans fe r of a l l r e a l and pe r sona l p roper ty , the

t rans fe r of respons ib i l i ty of supplying s e r v i c e s , and other agreed

I -

V

• ^ :

matters shall occur simultaneously, and the day upon which all

such matters are to be effective shall be hereafter referred to as

the transfer date. The transfer date shall be March 1, 1963..

I - PROPERTY

The City will convey to the San Diego Unified.Port

District and District will accept the conveyance of all those lands

described in the Conveyance from City to District dated March 1,

1963, a:nd filed in the Office of the City Clerk as Document

N°' 32405 and filed in the Office of the District Clerk as

Document No. 103

The District arid the City shall take such steps as may

be necessary to clearly define the boundaries of the tidelarids and

submerged lands described in said Conveyance, and shall cause a

Map of such lands to be prepared. Copies of said Map shall be

filed~wtth"the~District and the City and shal lbe made-a part of this

aigree.ment.

The City shall retain the right of control and possession

of all of parcel 6-C, National City Tidelands, as shown on City of

National City Engineering Department Drawing, numbered 260-L,

dated 2 October 1956, and titled Tentative Tidelands Parceling;

excepting therefrom the westerly portion as determined by a line

lying parallel to and distant 158 feet westerly from the easTerly

boundary of said parcel, for the purpose of maintaining a fire

Station thereon. City shall, maintain said parcel and any improve

ments thereon in good repair , and shall save the District harmless

and indemnify it against all claims for damage to property or

injury to' persons resulting from the use and occupancy of sa;id

!1 10̂ - 2 -

X

parcel by City. At such time as City shall cease using said parcel

for the Txiaintenaince of a fire Station thereon, the right of control

and the possession thereof shall revert to the District.

City shall corivey to the District all funds rtow iri possession

of the City which have heretofore been received by City a:s. a result

of the use, occupancy or operation of the lands being conveyed to

Dis^trict pursuant to this agreement and shall pay to District any

such funds which may be received, by. City subsequent to' the date

of this agreement.

City may retain, Jaowever, such amounts aS may be neces-. - . 8 ' •

sSS>y to pay any outstariding'.obligations of City which are a proper

charge' a;ga;irist such funds', and shall satisfy such obligaltions with

the retained funds.

II - STREETS

All s t reets located on the lands being conveyed.to District

by this" agreement, except for those streets heretofore dedicated to

public us^e, shall henceforth belong to the District, and sha l lbe

designated "private s t reets . "

District will construct at its own expense any future streets

withiri the area being conveyed to District by this agreement. In the

event any streets are required in said area for general public use.

Such, s t reets will be constructed to existirig City standards and

specifications by District, and shall be designated "public s t reets . "

District shall dedicate, and City shall accept,, all such "public

s t reets ."

District shall maintain all "private s t ree ts" as defined

herein, a;nd City shall maintain all dedicated s t ree ts within, the area

being conveyed to Distr,ict pursuant to this agreement aind a l l "public

s t ree t s" a:s defined herein. ,

3 - 102

City will enforce ordinary traffic regulations, except

parking, upon the "privalte s t reets , " and shall,receive any revenue

resulting from such enforcement. District shall receive all other

revenues, including parking, from such "private s t reets . "

', i n - SERVICES

It is expressly understood that City will provide, a;t no

cost to District, those services which sire classified as normal city-

wide Services, and that any services classified as extraordinary

services upon District lands shall be provided by District at its own

expense; that District may provide such, extraordinary services by

contract with City or otherwise; that the following are some, but.,

not alii—to-be-elassified as-extraordinary-services:—rodent control,

auditing, purchasing, retirement and insurance, firebbalts, and the

Services of the City Treasurer , Attorney, Civil Service and Public

Works Department; that iri other instances not specifically mentioned,

the cr i ter ia for determining whether or not the service Shall be

deemed extraordinary or regular service, now or in the future,

shall be whether or not the City provides such service to other areas

of the community without charge, except for ad valorem taxes^

IV - EASEMENTS

City reserves from the aforementioned conveyance utility

easements for existing sewer and drainage facilities. Existing

utilities and the easements therefor shall be located by surveys to

be filed with City and District on or before July I, 1965.

Existing utilities and future utility easements shall conform

to the following standards unless otherwise agreed to by the.City

' 102 _ 4 _ V

Manager and the Port Director:

Eaisements shall be fifteeri (15) feet in width except that

for drains more than 60 iriches in diameter and sewer, mains larger

than. 16 inches in diameter the easement shall be twenty (20) feet

in width.

If the^ easement only supplies operations on District

P|'f>'pertieSi District will supply the survey and miap. m ^ ' . . . , • • ' • , • •

If the easement supplies benefits to no District properties.

City will supply the survey and map.

If the easement supplies service which is jointly beneficial

to District and known District properties, the principal beneficiary,

i. e . , City or District will supply the survey and map.

V - GENERAL

Police, building, sanitary, fire and licensing regulations

of City shall apply to all District properties within the city limits. .

Sewer service charges, if any, will be,billed.to District

and to tenants on District property in the same manner as all

other service use r s .

The City Shall retain all documerits and records relating

to the lands.being conveyed to District pursuant to this agreement

now in its possession until they are disposed of unde;r the provisions

of la:w for the disposal of records or in some manner mutually

satisfactory to City and District. City will furnish District with a

certified copy of any such document upon request.

Whenever a franchise t raverses District property, the

San, Diego Unified Port District shall be entitled to the revenue from

such fralnchise; provided, however, that nothing in this paragraph

-•5 XOZ 5

shall limit the right of City to grant franchises through dedicated

City Streets on District property and to require frarichise payments

to City for such franchises.

VI - LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY

District assumes all responsibility for the legality of the

formation, of District, and for complete compliance with all the

terms of this Agreement, and for any other acts, actioris or

effects that in any way result in damage to or increased financial

responsibility of City, and shall indemnify and save free and harm

less. City and its authorized agents, officers and employees against

ariy of the foregoing liability and any costs and experises incurred by

City on account of any claim or claims therefor.

It is expressly agreed that should there be any delay in the

transfer date because of litigation or otherwise or should any

inconsistent dates ar ise between the transfer date, which shall be

. the date or delayed date heretofore referred to,, and any other date

in this agreement or in the documents referred to in this agreement,

such dates shall be ineffectual and this agreement shall become

effective upon, and only upon, the transfer date as herein set out

or as delayed by litigation or otherwise.

So long as any litigation is pending to question the con

stitutionality of the San Diego Unified Port District Act or the

validity-of_th.e_existerice of, or the exercise of power by, the

Sari Diego Unified Port District, acting through its Board of Port

Commissioners and other officers arid employees, agrees that all

revenues derived from the lands conveyed under the terms of this

- 6 -103 ^

agreement shall be used exclusively for the purpose of improvirig

the harbor an'd the tidelands fronting thereon, and for the main-

teriance and operation of the portion of the District which was once

controlled and operated by National City, and for such other'

purposes, or uses for which. City could expend such monies.

City Clerk

Port. Clerk

THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY

By 0!-,<-i-<S.-<_""

FIED PORT DISTRICT

- 7 102 -?

( "

f-

,RESOLUTION NO. 63-56 f ••* io;2

WHEREAS, the SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT ACT

requires that all cities within the District convey to Lhe

District all of their tidelands and submerged lands in the

Bay of San Diego; and

TOEREAS, officials of the City of National City and

the District have prepared an agreement providing for the

terms and conditions of said transfer by the City of National

City and for the methods of accomplishing the other duties and

obligations of the parties under said Act, and

V/HEREAS, the City Council of the City of National City

has authorized its Mayor to execute said agreement, NOW,

THEREFORE,

BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Port Conunissioners of

the San Diego Unified Port District, as follows:

That the Port Director is hereby authorized to execute

on behalf of the District an agreement with the City of

National City governing the rights, duties and obligations of

said parties, including the transfer of tidelands and sub

merged lands to the District pursuant to the provisions of the

San Diego Unified Port District Act, which agreement has.here

tofore been executed by the City of National City and is on

file in the office of the Clerk as Document No. 102

Presented

^

^ -^ ^

K

Approved

AWR;fs'2/26/63

j,, * . $ " ? 'i OF. I G I iYA L BAN DILGO UNlFl"0 PORT DISTRIC?

f ? '> TF!E C I T Y OF f~~.41-!(7'~'!-! C I T Y , a ml in ic ina ! c o r p o r a t i o n

i n t h e C o t r 7 t y o f San Diego, S t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a , hereby con-

veys, w i t h o u t warrant;), t o t h e S . ~ Y D I E G O L I N I F I E D PO2T D I S T ' I I C T ,

c7 pub1 i c c o r p o r a t i o n e s t a h l i shed ?urs i ian t t o t h c San P ieso

lJnifi6;i P o r t f i i s t r i c t Act, a l l of the r i g h t , t i t l e and i n t e r e s t :

o f s a i d C i t y of N a t i o n a l C i t y i n and t o t h e t i d e l a n d s and

siibmerued !ai?ds, t o g e t h e r w i t h a!-!;' f a c i 1 i t i e s thereorl, which

a r e O W X ~ by s a i d C i t y o f ! c t i ona ' l C i t y , and which a r e re -

q u i r e d t o be cmveyecl by t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e San D i e 9 0

I Jn i f i e d F o r t P i s t r i c t , i n c l u d i n g any siic1-1 lands w h i c h have

been 9 r a n t e d i n t r u s t t o the s a i d C i t y o f : \ !at ior lai C i t y by

t h e S t a t e i n t h e Ray o f San 9 iego.

I 4 ;.\llTFIESS \d!-IE!?EOF, t h e C i t y o f Wat iopal C i t y has

cau5e.c; th i s conveyance t o be execlrted by i t s L'ayor and C i t y

r ,le!-!<, pilrsiuai:t t r > 2 e s o l u t i o n of i t s C i t y Cc;rtnci1 a u t h o r i z i n g

STATE OF CAL i FORN 1.4 )

COUI!TY OF SA,< DlEGO )

3 10'63, b e f o r e me, t h e unders igned, a No ta ry Pub1 i c i n a n 8 f a i d County and S t a t e , r e s i c l i n r t h e r e i o , d u l y cornnissioned and s , persopa 1 1 y annea red

( S S .

c

On t h i s -2'67'd day o f A/&= A ,A,</

- 1 -

Y

&+ ;* p' -z/ - . L fg??2=7c ~ , known t o me t o

- 2++-d, r,'7 1 and be the C i t y C l e r k of t h e

m u n i c i p a l co !t- , o r a t i o n t h a t executed the w i t h i n i ns t rumen t , and known t o me to be t h e persons w17o executed the w i t h i n i ns t rumen t on b e h a l f of t h e m u n i c i p z l c o r p o r a t i o n t h e r e i n named, and acknowledged t o me t h a t such m u n i c i p a l c o r p o r a t i o n executed the same.

I d W I T & E S S V!HEP,EOF, I have he reun to s e t my hand and o f f i c i a l s e a l , i n the Coirnty of San Die?o, S t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a , t he day and year i n t h i s c e r t i f i c a t e f i r s t above w r i t t e n ,

- 2 -

HEXILUTIO# AUTHORlZlMG MAYOR TO SIC% A # AGREEMEW WITH AND EXECUTE A C061VMAKE TO THE $AN DlEC;3j UNIFIED PORT DiSTRlf.3 '

lands, togather w l t h any facl 1 it le8 tharwn, whE ch w o awned by

raid C i t y of Hstfanal C i t y , lwtudlnp- sny 8uch lands whdcch have

beern granted i n t rus t t o the ssid C i t y of h t l o n a l Clty by the

State In the 8ey of San Olego.

8E I T FURTHER H&&)LVED that t h 8 Mayor o f Natfsnal

C i t y be and I s h w e b y authorlrad and dl r a ~ t e d t o axscute and

the C i t y Clerk i s 8uthorired and directed t o a t twrt , ta convey-

JMWB t o the SAN 01EW WIFtED PORT B I S R I C T , a puhtlr: corpora-

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of National City, California, this ...... 26-%h---.

day of -__.-._____ Eehrmryr --.--------------------------/ 19-62 __________, by the following vote, to-wit:

Richard B. Gautereaux ____.______..___.__________.____________-.-.---.--.------------.-------------------- Mayor of the City of National City, California

Reso I ut ion I hereby approve the foregoing day of _ _ _ _ ?!?bru?pX ----.--I 19&.

Biehard E. Gautereaux ________._______________._______._______-----.-----------.---- Mayor of the City of National City, California

8315 No ..__.___________.__.. J- I hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full and true copy of

of the City of National City, California, as adopted by the City Council of said Resolutions of the { masr

City, and approved by the Mayor of said City, on the _ _ _ _ _ _ 26-th _.__ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ E e U s l c y . ...___..___ , 19-63 ...

3

c REFERENCE COPY 103

RESOLUTION NO. 8382

RESULUTION E X P E D i l I N G CX>NV€YANCE OF PROPERTY TO THE S A N DiEcO UWIFl€D Porn DISTRICT

and C i t y Clark of t h o C i t y of Watlonrl C i t y are h u o b y

authorized and diroctod t o transfor and pay t o tho Sln

01- Unlflod Port D i r t r i e t tho r u a l n l n g brlanco of

$11,532.18 i n tho Harbor fund of t h o C i t y of Clvtlonal

C i t y , and

6. I t furthar Roaolvod that $ r i d Harbor Fund

bo and h u o b y 18 clo$od out and torminrtod.

P&SED &D M X ) n E O t h i s 14th day of May, 1963.

SAN Ul&G&J 3lYlflCO PORT DISTRICT

Office of the Clark

c

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of National City, Colifornia, this ................... 14th

day of ..................... ----.--..----.-....--..-.----.-.., 19..63 .-------., by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES: Councilmen ..... A1l-e n,... c-*~-bU.rn~.--~-~-~-.-~r-6~n~...~ute.re-aUX--........-.-.--..--.- ........................................................................................................................................................................

NAYS: Councilmen ........ HQne ........................................................................................................... ..........................................................................................................................................................................

Hone ABSENT: ....................................................................................................................................................

Richard E. (3sutereaux .................................................................................... Mayor of the City of National City, California

ATTEST: Irene A* atratton City Clerk

........................................................................................................................................................

this ...... Xkth .... day of ......... --.-..-.....-.--, 19 .&.. Resolution Qy#3pIcdcsc I hereby approve the foregoing

mehard E. Cfautereaux Mayor of the City of Notional City, California

..................................................................................

No. -&& ....... Resolution I hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full and true copy of

of the { {

of the City of National City, Colifornia, os adopted by the City Council of said I Resolutions

City, and approved by the Mayor of said City, on the .... 1hth--.---doy of ..........ya~-.....-----------...., 19 .. 63 ...

.-.- X..--d- ..... ........................... City C l e z o f the Cityof Notional City, California.


Inclusion of Appendix J, Aerial photograph of Vehicles 3.5.1and Railcars Stored West of West 32nd Street Terminus

The aerial photograph is provided below.


3-31 August 2016

ICF 172.14

Chapter 4 Comments Received and District Responses

The Draft EIR was available for public review for 45 days beginning on April 29, 2016 and ending on June 13, 2016. The District posted an electronic version on the District website, hard copies were sent to the National City Public Library, and a copy was available for review at the District’s Administration Building at 3165 Pacific Hwy, San Diego, CA 92101. A Notice of Availability was posted with the County Clerk and on the District website on April 29, 2016. All requisite documents, including the Notice of Completion form, were sent to the State Clearinghouse on April 28, 2016. Below is a listing of those agencies and organizations that received a copy of the Draft EIR, a postcard noticing, or an email noticing the availability of the Draft EIR.

4.1 Public Draft EIR Distribution List 4.1.1 Federal Agencies

Federal Aviation Administration: Air Traffic Airspace Branch; Southwest Region; Western-Pacific Region U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Los Angeles District; San Diego Field Office U.S. Coast Guard: San Diego Marine Safety Office U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service: West Coast Regional Office U.S. Department of the Navy: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest Office; Public Affairs Department; Naval Air Station North Island U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: Carlsbad office; San Diego Wildlife Refuge

4.1.2 State Agencies California Air Resources Board California Coastal Commission: Headquarters; San Diego Coast District Office California Department of Boating and Waterways California Department of Fish and Wildlife: South Coast Region, Habitat Conservation Planning California Department of Public Health California Department of Toxic Substances Control California Department of Transportation: Division of Aeronautics; District 11 Office California Environmental Protection Agency California Highway Patrol California Integrated Waste Management Board California Native American Heritage Commission California Office of Planning & Research (State Clearinghouse) California Public Utilities Commission California Regional Water Quality Control Board: Region 9, San Diego


4-1 August 2016

ICF 172.14


Chapter 4. Comments Received and District Responses

California Resources Agency California State Lands Commission California State Water Resources Control Board

4.1.3 Regional and Local Agencies City of Chula Vista: Planning Department City of Coronado: Community Development Department City of Imperial Beach: Community Development Department City of National City: Mayor; City Council; Community Development Department; National City Public Library City of San Diego: Development Services; Planning Department Civic San Diego County of San Diego: County Clerk; Board of Supervisors; Department of Planning and Development Services; Department of Environmental Health; Air Pollution Control District; Vector Control Program San Diego Association of Governments San Diego County Regional Airport Authority San Diego County Water Authority San Diego Gas & Electric San Diego Metropolitan Transit System

4.1.4 Organizations BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair Inc. Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad Chula Vista Yacht Club Costco Wholesale Corporation Dixieline Lumber Company (ProBuild) Dole Fresh Fruit Company Downtown San Diego Partnership Environmental Health Coalition Fabrication Technologies Industries, Inc. GB Capital Holdings Harvest Meat Company I Love a Clean San Diego IBEW Local 569 International Paper Co Marine Group Boat Works Meissner Jacquet Investments Merkel and Associates


4-2 August 2016

ICF 172.14



MRW National City Chamber of Commerce National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO) O’Neill Wetsuits, LLC Pacific Southwest Biological Services Pasha Automotive Services Pepper Oil Company, Inc. Pier 32 Marina Group, LLC PLA-ART International R.E. Staite Engineering, Inc. San Diego Audubon Society San Diego Business Journal San Diego Coastkeeper San Diego County Archaeological Society San Diego Daily Transcript San Diego Electric Railway (National City Depot) San Diego Joint Port Labor Relations Committee San Diego Port Tenants Association San Diego Cold Storage San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce San Diego Union Tribune Save Our Heritage Org Sierra Club: San Diego Chapter Strategic Management Group Surfrider Foundation: San Diego Chapter Tidelands Partners, LLC Tuff A&T VanWaters & Rogers, Inc. (Univar USA) Vantage Associates, Inc.

Other interested individuals and groups also received a postcard or email noticing the availability of the Draft EIR.

4.2 Comments Received on the Draft EIR The District received 10 comment letters on the Draft EIR during the public review period. Topics included, but are not limited to air and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, transportation and traffic, hazardous materials, land use and planning, noise, and cumulative projects. Table 4-1 lists the agencies and organizations that provided comment letters.


4-3 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Table 4-1. Agencies and Organizations that Submitted Comment Letters on the Draft EIR

Letter Agency/Organization Dated Page

Federal Agencies A United States Department of the Navy 06/13/16 4-5 State Agencies B Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and

Planning Unit 06/14/16 4-11

C Caltrans 06/13/16 4-13 D California Coastal Commission 06/23/16 4-15 Regional and Local Agencies E County of San Diego, Department of Environmental Health, Hazardous

Materials Division 06/13/16 4-36

F SANDAG 06/13/16 4-42 G City of National City 06/13/16 4-45 H National City Chamber of Commerce 06/03/16 4-67 Organizations I Environmental Health Coalition 06/13/16 4-68 Individuals J Dixieline Lumber Company 05/23/16 4-83


4-4 August 2016

ICF 172.14



4.2.1 Letter A – United States Department of the Navy

Comment A-1:

This comment is an introductory comment that explains the Navy is providing comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the National City Marine Tank Farm (NCMT) Paving and Street Closures Project & Port Master Plan Amendment (PMPA) (UPD #EIR 2014-188; SCH #2014121046). This comment notes that the proposed project is adjacent to and south of Naval Base San Diego (NBSD). The comment states that the comments contained in the letter relate to the potential new train service, heavy truck idling near sensitive noise receptors, and clarification of the parking at the I-Lot located on the NCMT.

The U.S. Navy is the District’s federal strategic partner and appreciates the Navy’s interest in the proposed project. The District has had a longstanding partnership with the Navy that will help ensure the orderly planning of future growth within and adjacent to both the District’s and the Navy’s jurisdictions. No specific issues are raised in this particular comment that require a response, but the specific comments that follow in the letter are addressed in the following responses.

Comment A-2:

This comment notes that the project could result in new train services on Sundays. The comment requests the hours that this train would service the NCMT and how it could potentially impact gate operations and traffic at NBSD. The comment also requests additional details regarding any impacts to gate operations and traffic at NBSD from the Pasha’s future mobile railcar mover.

Sunday trains would typically leave around 9:00 p.m., the same time as weekday trains, because trains typically arrive in the early morning hours, are built throughout the day, and are then ready to depart in the late evening. Thus, the Sunday train would not contribute to any significant traffic delays during the peak hour on Sunday and would


4-5 August 2016

ICF 172.14



not have a significant impact on gate operations and traffic associated with NBSD. Moreover, the future mobile railcar mover will help break down and assemble trains during loading and unloading operations at the terminal and would not leave the NCMT for safety reasons. Thus, the railcar mover would have no effect on gate and traffic operations associated with NBSD. No changes are required in the Final EIR.

Comment A-3:

This comment notes that the Pasha’s future mobile railcar mover description indicates that it will reduce the hours when locomotives are active at NCMT. The comment requests additional details regarding impacts, or lack thereof, to the surrounding land uses and properties.

The methodology used to estimate the direct emissions associated with the mobile railcar mover as well as the displaced locomotive hours is described in Section 4.1.4.1 of the Draft EIR and impacts thereof are shown in Tables 4.1-9 (for unmitigated) and Table 4.1-10 (for mitigated) (see the “Railcar Mover” and “BNSF Rail – NCMT Switching (displaced by Railcar Mover)” rows). As shown in Tables 4.1-9 and 4.1-10, the railcar mover would reduce emissions from terminal operations, would not leave the NCMT, and would result in no impacts on surrounding land uses. No changes are required in the Final EIR.

Comment A-4:

This comment acknowledges that rail operations are discussed under the Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change and Energy use section. However, the comment recommends that the rail operations should also be discussed under the Transportation, Circulation, and Parking section.

Freight train operations within the corridor are restricted to off-peak times between the hours of approximately 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. to 5:30 a.m. during weekdays. As such, rail operations would have no effect on peak hour traffic volumes and the additional rail operations associated with the project were appropriately not included in the peak hour intersection analysis of the Traffic Impact


4-6 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Analysis.

Additionally, as is common practice within the District, the transportation regulatory guidelines for the member agency in which the proposed project is located are utilized when conducting a technical study. Due to the proposed project’s location within the City of National City, the project study area and significant impact criteria were determined based upon the methods and guidelines outlined in the manual titled SANTEC / ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies in the San Diego Region; March 2, 2000. As noted in Figure 1 of the SANTEC/ITE manual, intersections in which a proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour trips should be included within the project study area. As displayed in Figures 3-3 and 3-4 of the Traffic Impact Study (see Appendix G of the Draft EIR), the proposed project is only anticipated to contribute peak hour trips along Bay Marina Drive. Therefore, no intersections within or adjacent to NBSD, including the intersection of Tidelands Avenue and 19th Street (to which the project would only contribute 9 peak hour trips), were included in the study area because the traffic contributed to them did not require further study pursuant to the screening thresholds. No changes are required in the Final EIR.

Comment A-5:

The comment acknowledges the heavy truck idling analysis contained within Chapter 4, Noise and Vibration, of the Draft EIR. This analysis considers the effects of truck idling noise on sensitive receptors within the project vicinity in the City of National City. However, the comment expresses concern regarding the same potential impacts on sensitive receptors that surround NBSD, but that are located near the City of San Diego streets and do not fall under the jurisdiction of the City of National City. The comment requests additional information to describe how routine enforcement would be ensured to achieve mitigation. Additionally, the comment requests that further information be provided to address this issue to reduce potential impacts to NBSD and other potential receptors.

As indicated on Figure 3-2 within Appendix G, Traffic Impact Analysis, of the Draft EIR and in Section 4.7, Transportation, Circulation, and


4-7 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Parking, of the Draft EIR, all traffic accesses the NCMT via Interstate 5 (I-5) from Bay Marina Drive. This is the most direct route to and from the NCMT and intersection and roadway segments along Bay Marina Drive and at the on- and off-ramps to I-5 at these locations, all operate at acceptable levels of service, making it the most convenient and fastest route to the NCMT. Moreover, the City of National City’s boundaries extend 1.75 miles north of the NCMT, where the City of San Diego boundaries begin. The NBSD sensitive receptors mentioned in this comment are near Main Street/I-5 in San Diego, approximately 1.5 miles north of the nearest project site, and are not within the truck route for NCMT.

Like the City of National City, the City of San Diego also has its own municipal ordinances that make it unlawful to park heavy-duty vehicles in residential areas (San Diego Municipal Code, Section 86.0149). The City of San Diego may enforce the local parking ordinances, making such idling illegal and subject to fines. Given that no trucks access NCMT by driving through local City of San Diego streets, the relatively long distance to the City of San Diego’s boundaries from the NCMT, and because the City of San Diego prohibits parking heavy-duty vehicles on residential streets, parking and idling of heavy-duty trucks that are associated with the NCMT on City of San Diego streets is far less likely to occur than within the City of National City. In the event such idling occurs, the City of San Diego’s municipal code allows the City to ticket offenders or remove the vehicle in violation of the existing ordinance, resulting in a less than significant impact. No changes are required in the Final EIR.

Comment A-6:

This comment requests clarification regarding the location of the I-Lot as well as the ingress/egress in the project description, analysis and all site maps. The comment also requests additional details regarding the effects of increased parking and traffic on gate operations and traffic at NBSD.

The I-Lot is within the NCMT. The location is approximately 0.5 mile south of the NBSD gate at 19th Street and is approximately 1.35 miles from the NBSD gate at 8th Street. As noted in the response to


4-8 August 2016

ICF 172.14



comment A-5, the vast majority of traffic that accesses the NCMT does so using Bay Marina Drive. This is the most direct route to and from the NCMT and intersection and roadway segments along Bay Marina Drive and at the on- and off ramps to I-5 at these locations all operate at acceptable levels of service. Therefore, no employees accessing the I-Lot of the terminal would have a need to divert from this route and travel north along Tidelands Avenue past the 19th Street gate and continue along Harbor Drive past the 8th Street gate. Figures 4.7-7 and 4.7-8 have been added to the EIR to depict the location of I-Lot and the proposed parking layout. No other changes to the Final EIR are required.

Comment A-7:

This comment provides an overview of the U.S. Navy’s Pacific Rebalance of Assets initiative that will increase ships and personnel at NBSD by up to 46% between Fiscal Years 2015-2020.

The District appreciates the additional clarifying information that has been provided by the Navy to further understand the level of growth associated with the Navy’s Pacific Rebalance. The information indicates there would be a 46% increase in both ships (an increase of 24) and in active-duty military and dependents (an increase of 15,880 people) reporting to NBSD between Fiscal Years 2015 and 2020. As a result, the discussion on Page 5-3 of the Draft EIR has been expanded to include these growth projections. This clarification has been added to the Final EIR’s cumulative analysis (see Chapter 3, page 3-1). In addition and separate from the comment letter, the Navy provided the District with two environmental impact statements (EISs) for two pier improvement projects—one at Pier 8 and the other at Pier 12—for the recent Dole Refrigerated Rack Improvements Project. These two projects have been added to the NCMT Tank Farm and Streets Closures & PMPA EIR’s cumulative project list as well, which is provided as Table 5-2 (page 3-2 to 3-5 of the Final EIR) and are considered cumulative projects for the proposed project analysis.

In conclusion, all information provided by the Navy has been added to the EIR. All significance determinations and any associated mitigation remain unchanged by this additional information. Pursuant to Section


4-9 August 2016

ICF 172.14



15088.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the information is not considered significant new information because it does not deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the District has declined to implement. Specifically, the new information does not result in:

1. a new significant environmental impact;

2. a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact that would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance;

3. a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure that is considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the District declined to adopt it; or

4. the determination that the Draft EIR is so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

Therefore, the EIR has satisfied the requirements of CEQA, including Section 15130. The District looks forward to working closely with the Navy to incorporate the growth forecasts into the planning effort associated with the Integrated Planning Port Master Plan Update. No other changes are required in the Final EIR.

Comment A-8:

This comment notes that the Navy appreciates the opportunity to comment on the EIR and provides a contact for further follow-up.

The contact information is noted. The District appreciates the Navy’s interest in the proposed project and the Navy’s interest in coordinating future growth associated with the NBSD. The District will continue to collaborate with the Navy on future projects within the vicinity of the NBSD to ensure consideration of planning issues and orderly growth in the area.


4-10 August 2016

ICF 172.14



4.2.2 Letter B – State Clearinghouse

Comment B-1:

This comment letter acknowledges that the State Clearinghouse submitted the Draft EIR to the selected state agencies for review. The letter transmits the comment letter from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). That letter is included in this Final EIR as Letter C, and the District has provided responses to that letter. No changes are required in the Final EIR.


4-11 August 2016

ICF 172.14




4-12 August 2016

ICF 172.14



4.2.3 Letter C – California Department of Transportation, CALTRANS

Comment C-1:

This comment notes that Caltrans received a copy of the Draft EIR for the proposed project and indicates that comments follow.

Responses to Caltrans’ specific comments are provided below.

Comment C-2:

This comment notes that any work performed in Caltrans right-of-way will require discretionary approval by Caltrans and an encroachment permit would be required.

The District acknowledges that any work within Caltrans right-of-way will need to obtain the necessary permit from Caltrans. However, at this time, there are no actions associated with the proposed project would occur within Caltrans right-of-way; therefore, no changes are required to the Final EIR.

Comment C-3:

This comment notes that the 2014 existing condition traffic volumes are low in comparison to the Caltrans 2014 counts and requests further clarification regarding several locations. The 2014 ramp traffic counts were provided by a third party, National Data & Surveying Services, and are actual counts taken during the peak hour period. Specifically, the ramp volumes were based on peak hour intersection turning movement counts conducted on Tuesday, July 29, 2014. If the District were to use counts for the ramps provided by Caltrans, the District’s transportation consultant would have to manipulate all ramp intersection movements to match Caltrans’ ramp counts. Manipulating ramp intersection counts to match Caltrans’ ramp meter counts is less accurate than using actual count data for the ramp intersections and then using that observed data to determine the ramp operations during that peak hour. Please


4-13 August 2016

ICF 172.14



see Appendix A of Appendix G, Traffic Impact Analysis, for the detailed count work sheets.

Comment C-4:

The comment letter concludes by providing the Caltrans contact name and information.

The District has noted the contact information and will send the Final EIR for your review and consideration.


4-14 August 2016

ICF 172.14



4.2.4 Letter D – California Coastal Commission

Comment D-1:

This comment is an introduction and provides a project summary. The comment ends by indicating that specific comments follow in the paragraphs below.

The District appreciates the Coastal Commission’s interest in the project and role in the project entitlement process. The District’s responses to the specific comments are provided in the responses that follow.

Comment D-2:

This comment notes that the project would incorporate two District-owned properties into the Port Master Plan and points out that these properties were previously regulated by the City of National City’s Local Coastal Plan (LCP). The comment continues by stating that these two properties were an important component to increasing public access to the San Diego Bay in National City, followed by a statement of the allowed uses under the Tourist Commercial designation. The comment continues by stating that the LCP included guidelines to facilitate public access while considering the nearby Paradise Marsh and the policies required to protect, enhance, and preserve the environmentally sensitive habitat areas of the marsh. The last observation states that the LCP included the extension of Marina Way to 32nd Street. The commenter states this extension was an important component to allow for continuous physical and visual access to and along the bay. The commenter concludes by acknowledging that the LCP’s Commercial Tourist designation and the District’s Commercial Recreation designation are similar, but suggests the Port Master Plan Amendment should include policy language that encourages public access and recreational uses, as well as the protection of sensitive habitat areas adjacent to Paradise Marsh.

As stated on Pages 2-3, 3-5, and 3-6 of the Draft EIR, the two District-


4-15 August 2016

ICF 172.14



owned properties that are proposed to be incorporated into the Port Master Plan as part of the project’s PMPA, are upland properties that the District acquired in the early 1990s.

Under the Port Act, the State of California delegated its authority to manage and control tidelands and submerged lands and waters around San Diego Bay to the District. In particular, the District was established for the development, operation, maintenance, control, regulation and management of the tidelands and lands lying under the inland navigable waters of San Diego Bay, as well as later acquired lands. (Cal. Harb. & Navig. Code, Appendix 1 [Port Act], §§ 4, 5.) The Port Act also states that “the district shall exercise its land management authority and powers over lands . . . . acquired by the district in furtherance of the district's powers and purposes as provided in Section 87.” (Id. § 5(b).) The District also has exclusive police power over property and development within its jurisdiction (Id. at §56).

In adopting the Port Act, the Legislature determined that the Port Act’s provisions constituted a matter of statewide concern and provided that the District occupy the field of regulation with respect to property owned by the District and to supersede any conflicting local ordinances (Id. at §79). As a tool to allow the District to regulate both granted and acquired lands, Section 19 of the Port Act requires the District to adopt a Port Master Plan. Furthermore, the Port Master Plan controls all uses of lands and waters within the District (Id. at § 19). Accordingly, both land and water granted to and acquired by the District are considered within the District’s jurisdiction and under the regulatory framework of the Port Act, the District manages such waters and lands by a variety of means including the Port Master Plan.

Under California Coastal Act (Coastal Act) Section 30715, the California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission) retains coastal development permit authority for development on property within a District’s jurisdiction until such property becomes subject to a certified Port Master Plan, at which time the port is vested with permitting granting authority. Under Section 30710 of the Coastal Act, the Coastal Commission is required to adopt maps delineating the


4-16 August 2016

ICF 172.14



jurisdictional boundaries of the four major port areas within the coastal zone. As provided for in the Coastal Commission’s implementing regulations (California Code of Regulations Section 13601(a)), port boundary maps may be amended to modify the legal geographic boundary if such boundary has changed. However, until such time, exclusive Coastal Act permitting jurisdiction rests with the Coastal Commission.

Despite the above-described requirement, in the 1990s and 2000s, the District and City entered into a series of Memoranda of Understanding (collectively, MOU) (see District Document Nos. 36077, 39834, 42362, and 46725, available in the District Clerk’s Office and incorporated herein by reference), whereby the agencies agreed that the City could incorporate those properties into the Harbor District Specific Area Plan with the intent that once the MOU expired, the District would then incorporate them into the Port Master Plan.

During the Harbor District Specific Area Plan certification process with the Coastal Commission, the City, as part of the record, stated that: “The term of the MOU extends to the year 2002, at which point, depending on intermediate actions, the [upland parcels] remains within the Coastal Act-based planning and regulatory jurisdiction of National City, or may be incorporated by [the District] pursuant to further legal geographical boundary amendment into the Port District's area for planning and regulation pursuant to the Port Master Plan. The City and District have agreed that during the term of the MOU, the [property] will remain in National City's planning and regulatory jurisdiction.” (See Appendix D of the Draft EIR.) The MOU was subsequently extended and expired in 2005. Moreover, the Harbor District Specific Area Plan specifies that the City obtained its land use authority through the term of the MOU. (Harbor District Specific Area Plan, pp. 1-9 and 6-1 are incorporated herein by reference.) As noted above, the MOU expired over 10 years ago.

Pursuant to the City’s statement to the Coastal Commission and the District’s understanding of the MOUs, the proposed PMPA incorporates the District-owned uplands properties into the Port Master Plan. This proposed action is consistent with the Public Trust


4-17 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Doctrine and Port Act, which requires the District to manage lands it acquires, as well as the Coastal Act.

A similar situation occurred in National City in 1999 when the District acquired the National Distribution Center, which was zoned “medium manufacturing/coastal zone” in the City’s Zoning Code. A Boundary Map Adjustment and PMPA were then processed with the Coastal Commission to include the National Distribution Center into the District’s Coastal Development Permit (CDP) jurisdiction and apply a “marine related industrial” land use designation to the site. Further, as stated in the May 25, 2000, Coastal Commission staff report for the Boundary Map Adjustment, “[p]ursuant to the San Diego Unified Port District Act…acquisition or interest in land transfers land management authority, including coastal development permit authority…to the Port of San Diego. However, under Section 30715 of the Coastal Act, the Port District cannot actually issue coastal development permits [for an acquired area] until the [Coastal] Commission approves an amendment to the Port Master Plan to incorporate the [acquired] area into the certified Port Master Plan and designate a land use for the area…Until that time, coastal development permit jurisdiction for development in the [acquired] area will revert back to the Coastal Commission.” (The Coastal Commission staff report is available at http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2000/6/T29b-6-2000.pdf, a copy of which is available with the District’s Planning & Green Port department, and is incorporated herein by reference.)

The uplands properties are proposed to be designated with a “commercial recreation” and they were formerly designated with a “commercial tourist” land use designation. As discussed on Page 4.5-12 of the Draft EIR, the commercial recreation land use designation is wholly consistent with the tourist commercial land use designation. Further, the existing Port Master Plan includes language that encourages public access and recreation uses in areas with that have such land uses, (e.g., commercial recreation). This language would likewise apply to the proposed PMPA, and the PMPA is consistent with the California Coastal Act. (See Table 4.5-5 of the Draft EIR for an analysis of the project’s consistency with relevant goals, objectives,


4-18 August 2016

ICF 172.14

http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2000/6/T29b-6-2000.pdf



and policies of the California Coastal Act.)

Finally, as discussed in the Draft EIR, when the revised NOP was issued for scoping input (August 2015), no commercial developments were proposed for the uplands sites and the Board of Port Commissioners had not directed staff to study such development. Therefore, no proposed project proposed would impact Paradise Marsh or would restrict public access and recreational uses in the area. However, the project description has been clarified to include the following policy for the area adjacent to Paradise Marsh. This language is similar to that of the City’s Harbor District Specific Area Plan:

Due to its proximity to Paradise March, any future commercial development proposal on the acquired property located east of Marina Way shall establish a habitat buffer area to protect any wetlands, sensitive species, and the Paradise Marsh. The habitat buffer should be at least a 100-foot width from the edge of any delineated wetlands. A reduced width buffer is allowed where it can be demonstrated that existing physical constraints preclude the 100-foot buffer and that the reduced buffer is adequate to protect any wetland resources from adverse impacts.

The clarification to the project description does not require recirculation as it is not significant new information and does not constitute a new significant impact. Specifically, pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, the new information added to the Final EIR does not deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the District has declined to implement. The clarifying language is similar to the existing regulatory restrictions found in the Harbor District Specific Area Plan and hence, does not change existing conditions.

Comment D-3:

This comment states what is proposed by the project, which is to designate the eastern portion of Lot K (4.48 acres) and Port Parcel


4-19 August 2016

ICF 172.14



028-007 (3.35 acres) with a Marine Related Industrial Overlay for a period not to exceed 7 years. The comment notes that this overlay would take place on land currently designated for Commercial Recreation (i.e., Port Parcel 028-007) and land proposed for the Commercial Recreation designation (i.e., eastern portion of Lot K). The comment suggests that these two parcels would increase public recreational opportunities if used for visitor-serving uses. The comment concludes by requesting that the District address how the loss of commercial recreation land use designated properties will be addressed.

Currently the eastern portion of Lot K and Port Parcel 028-007 are both used for marine related industrial uses. In particular, these properties are used as part of Pasha’s marine terminal operations, which is a coastal-dependent use, as Pasha’s operation depends on ships importing/exporting vehicles by waterborne vessels (see Section 30101 of the Coastal Act). This use has priority over commercial recreational uses in the Coastal Act. For example, Section 30001.5 of the Coastal Act provides that the legislature, in enacting the Coastal Act, declared and found that the coastal zone was established to “[a]ssure priority for coastal-dependent and coastal-related development over other development on the coast.” Accordingly, the Coastal Act established a hierarchy of land use types with coastal-dependent industries and uses taking priority over visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities. (See Section 30222 of the Coastal Act.) Additionally, “[c]oastal-dependent developments shall have priority over other developments on or near the shoreline. . . [and] [w]hen appropriate, coastal-related developments should be accommodated within reasonable proximity to the coastal-dependent uses they support” (Coastal Act Section 30255). Accordingly, as proposed, the PMPA is consistent with the Coastal Act, as these continued uses have priority. In other words, the Coastal Act does not require replacement of commercial recreational uses when a coastal dependent use is proposed to continue in place.

The proposed project would implement a temporary overlay that would permit continuation of maritime operations within their existing footprint rather than expanding offsite (see e.g., Coastal Act


4-20 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Section 30260, which encourages use of existing sites for growth of coastal-dependent industrial uses), while still acknowledging that the ultimate end use may be visitor-serving Commercial Recreation. The proposed PMPA would not displace any commercial recreational uses or development. Rather, in the long-term, the project would increase the area that would be designated for commercial recreational land uses by incorporating the eastern portion of Lot K into the PMP as Commercial Recreation and Port Parcel 027-047 as Commercial Recreation. The result, after approval of the project, would be an increase of 11.5 acres of land with the Commercial Recreation designation in the District.

In addition, as discussed on Page 4.5-1 of the Draft EIR, the temporary maritime use proposed on the portion of Port Parcel 025-010-D/Lot K that is located east of the mean high tide line (i.e., B-2 site in the City’s Harbor District Specific Area Plan), is a use that is conditionally permitted on that parcel in the City’s Harbor District Specific Area Plan.

Accordingly, as proposed, the PMPA is consistent with the Coastal Act, as the existing maritime-related industrial uses have priority over commercial recreational land uses in the coastal zone. Additionally, the overlay would only remain in place until the Board of Port Commissioners considers and approves a Commercial Recreation development project or for a time of 7 years from the date of the final PMPA approval, whichever occurs first (see for example pages 3-1, 3-4, 3-6, and 3-7 of the Draft EIR). There would be no loss in land that is designated for commercial recreation uses, as the commenter suggests, for two reasons: First, the two subject properties are currently used for marine related industrial land uses, not commercial recreation uses. Second, the PMPA language is specifically proposed to contemplate a temporary overlay with a defined termination point that could be accelerated if commercial recreation development is approved. No changes are needed to PMPA or to the Final EIR.

Comment D-4:

This comment states that although Port Parcel 028-007 and the


4-21 August 2016

ICF 172.14



eastern portion of Lot K have historically been used for vehicle storage, no analyses have been required because the storage has been authorized as a short-term use only. The comment suggests that the EIR include a discussion of how Pasha has used Lot K and Port Parcel 028-007 for vehicle storage.

The Draft EIR analyses the potential environmental effects from implementation of the proposed project. The Draft EIR established the baseline condition in December 2014 and looked at throughput for the most recent entire calendar year (2013) associated with Pasha’s operations. Throughput in 2013 was lower than in each successive year since. Thus, the baseline year represents a conservative baseline because the net difference with anticipated throughput with the project is greater with a lower baseline. It would not be appropriate, nor is it required, for the Draft EIR to analyze the effects of past actions on the project site that are not part of the proposed project. Rather, existing activities are considered as part of the baseline. (North County Advocates v. City of Carlsbad, 241 Cal.App.4th 94 (2015) (Baseline includes the existing conditions and the lead agency has discretion to look at baseline conditions over a period of time when the nature of such conditions fluctuates).) Therefore, no revisions to the Final EIR are needed.

Comment D-5:

This comment states that any lease extension should include a thorough analysis of impacts from the approval of short-term use permits [to allow for vehicle storage] along with an analysis of alternatives to the approval of the short-term use permits that would instead maximize or decrease the area of land presently used for storage. [An example of building a parking garage is provided.]

The Draft EIR does analyze the environmental impacts associated with renewing the short-term use permits. Please see Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR for a detailed description of all of the project components, including the renewal of the short-term use permits. Chapter 4, Environmental Impacts, of the Draft EIR provides the analysis for the resource areas that would be affected by the renewal of the short-term use permits. In addition, cumulative


4-22 August 2016

ICF 172.14



impacts of the short-term use permits are addressed in Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts. As noted in these chapters, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the long-term emissions (post-2020) of greenhouse gases. The project would have significant but mitigable impacts in the areas of air quality, hazardous materials, noise, and parking. No additional analysis or changes to the Final EIR are required.

CEQA requires a reasonable range of alternatives be considered (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6), which was accomplished in the EIR. Not every conceivable alternative is required to be studied. Rather, a lead agency uses a “rule of reason” when selecting what alternatives to study. (See Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi, 205 Cal. App. 4th 296 (2012).) The “rule of reason” requires an EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. It is not an ironclad rule, but rather, is dictated by the facts of the situation, the character of the project, environmental issues, feasibility, availability of infrastructure, Port Master Plan consistency, jurisdictional boundaries, and the availability of alternative sites. A lead agency must make an initial determination as to which alternatives are feasible and merit in-depth consideration, and which do not (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal. 3d 553, 569 (1990)). This is one of the purposes of the CEQA scoping period.

As it relates to alternatives to the proposed project, Chapter 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, uses the rule of reason to select the alternatives that were analyzed. As noted in that chapter, alternatives that were carried forward for comparative analysis with the proposed project included the following:

Alternative 1—Redevelop NCMT Tank Farm Only (No Renewal of Short-Term Use Permits).

Alternative 2—Renew Short-Term Use Permits Only (No NCMT Tank Farm or Street Closures).

Alternative 3—Remove Port Parcel 028-007 from Project.

Alternative 4—No Marine Related Industrial Overlay.


4-23 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Alternative 5—No Project.

Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 all consider alternatives that would reduce the project scope (i.e., Alternatives 3 and 4 reduce the number of short-term use permit sites), or eliminate them all together (i.e., Alternatives 1 and 5).

In addition, the Draft EIR considered several alternatives that were ultimately rejected because they would not meet the requirements of CEQA; namely they failed to reduce a significant impact of the proposed project, did not meet the basic objectives of the project, and/or were determined to be infeasible.

The commenter suggests that a parking structure alternative should be considered. However, the EIR does consider a parking structure alternative on pages 7-3 and 7-4 of the Draft EIR. As noted on those pages, the parking structure would have the benefit of freeing up land for other marine related industrial uses. However, a structure would present logistical challenges not currently present at the project sites. Currently, and as proposed under the project, trucks can travel to each storage site, pull up near the stored vehicles and load them. Under the parking structure alternative, trucks would park outside the structure and vehicles would be driven down to them. This presents additional movements associated with cargo that would be spread over hundreds of thousands of vehicles. This would add significant amounts of time and/or personnel needed, particularly if the structure is several stories. In addition, truck traffic would be concentrated at Quay Avenue and 28th Street, which would conceivably lead to queuing as trucks wait to be loaded. This would potentially cause longer loading times for trucks and could lead to ingress and egress blockage for other nearby marine related industrial businesses.

Moreover, construction of a structure would remove flexibility of alternative uses of the site when compared with paving a surface lot at the tank farm, which would allow for other future modifications/uses much more easily than attempting to reuse a parking structure for non-vehicle cargo uses. Otherwise, the structure


4-24 August 2016

ICF 172.14



would require demolition to allow for alternative cargo types in the long-term future.

In addition to the challenges presented above, the alternative would need to reduce a significant impact of the proposed project. Significant project-related impacts were identified with respect to air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, hazardous materials, noise, and parking. Significant impacts associated with air quality and GHGs are primarily the result of increased truck traffic, increased rail activity, and increased vessel hotelling times. This alternative would not reduce either of these sources of emissions, and may increase the severity of these impacts by increasing the time required to unload vessels and by increasing the amount of time trucks idle on the terminal. Moreover, this alternative would result in substantially greater construction-related impacts, particularly greater air and GHG emissions than the proposed project due to the substantial activities required to construct a parking structure. The significant impact related to hazardous materials is from potential discovery of burn ash from a former dump in the project vicinity, which would require the same mitigation as the project. The significant impact related to noise would be from the increase in trucks and the potential for them to idle along roadways near sensitive receptors; like the noise impact, this would be a similar level of impact with mitigation as the proposed project. The significant but mitigable parking impacts would occur from removing on-street parking, but would require sufficient on-terminal parking to account for terminal employees. This would potentially be reduced by not converting existing District streets to storage area.

This alternative was ultimately rejected because it would potentially worsen significant air quality and GHG impacts of the project, as well as increase impacts related to construction activities. While this alternative would potentially reduce parking impacts, the impacts on parking under the project would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the incorporation of mitigation (i.e., sufficient provision of onsite parking for employees). This alternative would also present logistical challenges and likely slow throughput compared to the project.


4-25 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Therefore, because alternatives were considered that modified or eliminated the short-term use permits component (including consideration of a parking structure alternative), no changes to the Final EIR are required.

Comment D-6:

This comment notes that the commenter is concerned with the decrease of land dedicated to public facilities (i.e., streets), with the concern being that the area is primarily marine industrial businesses and the decrease in streets would affect the public’s ability to access the bay.

As the commenter notes, the area is predominately marine industrial land uses. The streets planned for closure are considered private streets that service the internal portions of the terminal, not streets that are commonly be used for bay access. In other words, they are streets that are principally used for internal circulation within the terminal and adjacent marine related use areas; not for public use or access to the nearby commercial recreational areas. (See Coastal Act Section 30715(a)(3).) Specifically, the western portion of 32nd Street proposed for closure leads to the NCMT, which is not accessible to the public and does not provide waterfront access to the general public. Similarly the north portion of Quay Avenue and the west portion of 28th Street are surrounded by marine industrial land uses and bay access is not directly accessible from these streets either. The most convenient access to the bay would occur from Marina Way via Bay Marina Drive, which is the street that provides direct access to and from the I-5 freeway. The Marina Way route is closer to waterfront access and provides direct access to the areas currently designated and proposed for designation by the proposed project as Commercial Recreation. As such, closure of Quay Avenue between Bay Marina Drive and 28th Street, closure of 28th Street west of Quay Avenue, and closure of W 32nd Street west of Quay Avenue would have minimal effect on the public’s ability to access the waterfront from Pepper Park, Pier 32, or the National City Aquatic Center, all of which would have more direct access via Marina Way, which is closer to regional access via the I-5 than the streets planned for closure.


4-26 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Because closure of the portions of the streets discussed above is consistent with the Coastal Act, would result in less-than-significant environmental impacts with mitigation incorporated associated with parking, and more convenient access would continue to exist along Marina Way, no changes to the Final EIR are required.

Comment D-7:

This comment suggests that impacts to public access are exacerbated when viewed cumulatively with the potential impacts of projects that are proposed to be implemented in the future, but are not included in the Draft EIR analysis. The commenter specifically identifies the National City Balanced Land Use Study, which, according to the commenter, recommends land use changes that would have a detrimental effect on public access in National City by closing a portion of Marina Way.

To help clarify for readers of these responses to comments, the City’s September 2015 “Balanced Plan with Mitigation and Enhancements for National City” will be hereinafter referred to as “City’s Balanced Plan” or “City’s Plan,” and the District’s Balanced Land Use Plan, which in April 2016 the Board of Port Commissioners directed staff to start the CEQA process, will be hereinafter referred to as the “April 2016 Balanced Land Use Plan” or “Balanced Land Use Plan.” This comment is referring to the April 2016 Balanced Land Use Plan. The Board of Port Commissioners directed the further study of that plan and initiation of CEQA review on April 14, 2016, a date 2 weeks prior to commencement of public review for the “NCMT Tank Farm Paving and Street Closures Project & PMPA” Draft EIR. Thus, that Balanced Land Use Plan did not exist when the proposed project’s Notices of Preparation (NOPs) were issued. However, the City’s Balanced Plan, dated September 1, 2015, was included as a cumulative project in the Draft EIR (please see Project 11 listed in Table 5-2 within Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts, of the Draft EIR). That plan is the City of National City’s general conceptual long-term land use plan for City and District property in the National City Bayfront and did not propose to close Marina Way nor 32nd Street. Moreover, the Board of Port Commissioners has not directed its staff to advance the City’s Plan


4-27 August 2016

ICF 172.14



through the CEQA process, and hence, it is not currently being considered.

Access throughout the area, including to Park/Plaza and Commercial Recreation land uses are addressed under section 5.3.7 of the Draft EIR. As noted in this section, the cumulative baseline considered the potential closure of Tidelands Avenue, a project that would be separate from the proposed project and has independent utility. The analysis states:

“Cumulative Project #10 would close Tidelands Avenue, resulting in the loss of up to 216 on-street parking spaces. However, as this analysis does not specifically look at the impacts from Cumulative Project #10 in detail, it is not known if these spaces are generally used by employees working within the terminal and the associated marine related industrial facilities. If it is determined that these spaces are used by terminal employees, the terminal would be required to provide sufficient parking on the terminal to replace the loss of on-street parking. Additionally, if a public parking shortage would result from its closure, additional parking would need to be identified and secured. However, as noted on Table 9.2 of Appendix G [Traffic Impact Study], there is significant supply of available on-street parking that is anticipated to accommodate overflow of recreational facility users at Pepper Park, Pier 32 Marina, and the National City Aquatic Center (Cumulative Project #1) even with the loss of Tidelands Avenue. Therefore, because it is anticipated that Cumulative Project #10 would be required to provide on-terminal parking for any loss of on-street employee parking and because there is a sufficient on-street parking supply for the general public to access the Park/Plaza and Commercial Recreation land uses in the area, cumulative impacts on parking are considered less than significant.”

No other potential impacts to public access from cumulative projects were identified and the project’s contribution, as stated on page 5-40


4-28 August 2016

ICF 172.14



of the draft EIR, would not be cumulatively considerable.

Comment D-8:

This comment states that the EIR suggests that additional parking on 32nd Street east of Tidelands Avenue can accommodate parking demand; however, the comment further states that most of these parking spaces are located in front of the marina and are not as convenient to Pepper Park as the parking available west of Tidelands Avenue.

Assuming the parking at the Pepper Park/National City Aquatic Center parking lot is full, visitors may need to park on-street or at another facility such as Pier 32 Marina.

Parking along 32nd Street is limited to the northern side of the street, about 0.10 mile (or 528 feet) from the entrance of Pepper Park. The portion of 32nd Street west of Tidelands (proposed for closure) is approximately 0.15 mile (792 feet) from the park entrance. Parking along 32nd Street, east of Tidelands Avenue, is approximately 0.11 mile (or 581 feet) from the park entrance. Thus, the difference in walking to the entrance of Pepper Park is similar on either side of Tidelands Avenue along 32nd Street.

In addition, parking at Pier 32 Marina would allow visitors to walk directly to the National City Aquatic Center, which is adjacent to Pier 32 Marina, or across the parking lot to Pepper Park, which is approximately 0.08 mile (422 feet) from the entrance to Pepper Park at its closest and up to 0.35 mile (1,848 feet) at the farthest end of Pier 32 Marina parking. Additionally, all of this parking is focused in the Commercial Recreation areas, rather than within the Marine Related Industrial areas.

Parking along Tidelands Avenue would remain in place if the proposed project is implemented. As noted in the Draft EIR, as many as 216 on-street parking spaces are available along Tidelands that could be used for parking overflow needs. (Refer to Response D-7 regarding cumulative parking impacts from the closure of Tidelands Avenue.)


4-29 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Therefore, sufficient parking is provided in the area around the existing Commercial Recreation and Park/Plaza land uses and closure of 32nd Street would not have any meaningful impact on public access to the existing Commercial Recreation uses. No changes to the Final EIR are required.

Comment D-9:

This comment states that it is unclear when the parking demand survey was conducted and the number of days parking was observed. The commenter suggests that multiple weekend and weekday surveys should be conducted during the summer.

Parking demand was measured on a summer weekend day when public parking needs are likely at their highest (Saturday, August 8, 2015). As with traffic counts, taking parking counts over 1 entire day is an acceptable industry practice and provides a sufficient baseline in which to analyze a project’s effect on the available supply. No changes to the Final EIR are required.

Comment D-10:

This comment states that Table 4.5-5, Project Consistency with Relevant Goals, Objectives, and Policies, Port Master Plan Section II Goal IX, refers to physical and visual access to the bay and that the EIR concludes that the project “would not modify physical access to the Bay or views of the waterfront that currently exist.” However the comment indicates that the removal of 32nd Street as a public road would restrict public access and distant views to the bay and those impacts should be identified and analyzed in the EIR. Regardless, 32nd Street should remain open to public use and its proposed closure should be removed from the draft PMPA.

Please see the responses to Comments D-8 and D-9 regarding use of 32nd Street as public access to the waterfront and commercial recreational areas and use for public parking, respectively. Additionally, visual access to the Bay from the portion of 32nd Street proposed to be closed is blocked by terminal and rail activities, and by processing of Pasha cargo, as shown in the aerial photograph that


4-30 August 2016

ICF 172.14



is provided as Appendix J to the Final EIR, as provided in Chapter 3, Errata and Revisions, of the Final EIR. Therefore, closure of the street will not impact visual or physical access to the Bay. As concluded in the Draft EIR, public access to the bay would not be adversely effected. No changes to the Final EIR are required and no revisions have been made to the draft PMPA text, tables, figures, and project list.

Comment D-11:

This comment indicates that the amount of land dedicated to public facilities in the area should be maintained and any decrease of one public facility should be balanced with an associated increase in another type of public facility or use (e.g., open space, park/plaza, etc.).

Please see responses to Comments D-3 and D-6. Additionally, there is no requirement in the Coastal Act that public facilities must be replaced when a coastal-dependent use, which has the highest priority in the Coastal Act, is proposed to continue in place. As noted in those responses, the proposed project would ultimately result in an increase in Commercial Recreation land use designations and would allow flexibility with the proposed overlay such that once a Commercial Recreation project is proposed and approved by the Board, the overlay would automatically expire. If no Commercial Recreation project is proposed and approved by the Board within seven years following final approval of the PMPA, the overlay would expire. No changes to the Final EIR are required.

Comment D-12:

This comment states that the project list in the draft PMPA categorizes the Quay Avenue, 28th Street and 32nd Street closures as non-appealable and that Section 7.d(4) of the District’s Coastal Development Permit Regulations (Document No. 19171), defines “roads or highways which are not principally for internal circulation within Port boundaries” as an appealable development. The comment further states that the proposed street closures are currently used by the public for circulation and for parking, and as such do meet the


4-31 August 2016

ICF 172.14



definition of appealable as the streets are at least equally used by the public. The comment concludes that if the District believes differently, supporting documentation should be provided; otherwise, the draft PMPA should be corrected to reflect the street closure project’s appealable status.

Section 30715 of the Coastal Act and Section 7.d(4) of the District’s Coastal Development Permit Regulations, define “roads or highways which are not principally for internal circulation within Port boundaries” as an appealable development. However, the streets proposed to be closed as part of the project (portions of Quay Avenue, 28th Street, and 32nd Street) are all located within the Port District boundaries and internally service the terminal and surrounding marine related industrial area. They are not used for public access to the bay. Moreover, they are “private roadways” and are not dedicated public roadways. As described in Sections 30710 and 30711 of the Coastal Act, the Port Master Plan covers all areas of a Port’s jurisdiction. As the streets proposed to be closed as part of the project are within the Port’s jurisdiction and are principally for internal circulation to the terminal and surrounding marine related industrial within Port boundaries (the roadways are only located within the Port’s boundaries), the streets do not fit the definition of “appealable” development under Section 30715 of the Coastal Act and Section 7.d(4) of the District’s Coastal Development Permit Regulations. Therefore, no revisions to the draft PMPA or the Final EIR are required.

Comment D-13:

This comment suggests that the EIR fails to recognize the sensitivity of the land within and adjacent to Port Parcel 027-047.

Please refer to Comment D-2. While Port Parcel 027-047 is proposed for inclusion into the PMP, no physical changes are proposed to that site and no development is currently contemplated or proposed on that site. The site will also be designated Commercial Recreation similar to its existing designation in the City’s LCP. Therefore, there would be no effect on biological resources. However, the District recognizes the important role the Paradise Marsh plays for the local


4-32 August 2016

ICF 172.14



ecosystem and as such the Project Description has been clarified to include the following policy for the area adjacent to Paradise Marsh:

Due to its proximity to Paradise March, any future commercial development proposal on the acquired property located east of Marina Way shall establish a habitat buffer area to protect any wetlands, sensitive species, and the Paradise Marsh. The habitat buffer should be at least a 100-foot width from the edge of any delineated wetlands. A reduced width buffer is allowed where it can be demonstrated that existing physical constraints preclude the 100-foot buffer and that the reduced buffer is adequate to protect any wetland resources from adverse impacts.

The clarification to Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR does not require recirculation pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines as the information is not considered significant new information because the new information added to the Final EIR does not deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the District has declined to implement. The clarifying language is similar to the existing regulatory restrictions found in the Harbor District Specific Area Plan and hence, does not change existing conditions,

Comment D-14:

This comment states that Section 6.4.3.1 of the EIR concludes that the Port Parcel 027-047 is heavily disturbed and supports low-quality ruderal vegetation. However, the comment points out that this is contradictory to the finding of Section 3.1 of the National City Harbor District Specific Plan, which found that sensitive and valuable wetland characteristics exist on the subject property. The comment suggests that the Harbor District Specific Plan’s analysis should be considered and included in the EIR since it was based upon an onsite survey. Otherwise, any statement that Port Parcel 027-047 is heavily disturbed and supports low-quality ruderal vegetation should be accompanied by a supporting biological study and wetland delineation. The comment further states that the PMPA should be


4-33 August 2016

ICF 172.14



revised to include policy language that identifies the required open space buffer along Paradise Marsh.

Please see the response to Comments D-2 and D-13 regarding this clarification to Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR to include a policy for the area adjacent to Paradise Marsh. The Final EIR has been updated to reflect the additional clarification to the Project Description, as described in Chapter 3, Errata and Revisions, of the Final EIR. This project clarification does not affect the Draft EIR’s significance determinations or result in any new or more severe environmental impacts. The clarification to the project description does not require recirculation pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines as the information is not considered significant new information because the new information added to the Final EIR does not deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the District has declined to implement.

Additionally, the project does not propose any development within this parcel, nor does it allow any future development without the necessary CEQA compliance.

Comment D-15:

This comment indicates that the PMPA should be revised to include policy language about an open space buffer adjacent to Paradise Marsh.

Please see response to Comments D-2 and D-13. As discussed in the Draft EIR, when the revised NOP was issued for scoping input (August 2015), no commercial developments were proposed for the uplands sites and the Board of Port Commissioners had not advanced such a development. Therefore, no proposed project would impact Paradise Marsh or would restrict public access and recreational uses in the area.

Comment D-16:

This comment indicates that there are two minor corrections that


4-34 August 2016

ICF 172.14



should be included in the draft PMPA. Page 56 references the aquatic center facility in Pepper Park as proposed and it should be modified to reflect its current constructed and operational status, and Figure 16 shows the outline of a planning subarea that is not identified by number or name.

These two clarifications have been made and are included in Chapter 3, Errata and Revisions, of the Final EIR. The clarifications are minor clerical requests/corrections. They have been incorporated into the PMPA and do not result in any new or more severe significant impacts, nor do they represent new significant information; as such they do not require recirculation of the Draft EIR per Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Comment D-17:

This comment thanks the District for the opportunity to comment and provides contact information for the commenter.

The District will send a copy of the Final EIR to the contact information provided.


4-35 August 2016

ICF 172.14



4.2.5 Letter E – County of San Diego, Department of Environmental Health

Comment E-1:

This comment is an introduction and indicates that the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health’s Hazardous Materials Division (HMD) is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) within the County. HMD ensures that businesses properly manage hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, medical wastes, and aboveground and underground storage tanks.

The District has responded to HMD’s specific comments in the responses that follow.

Comment E-2:

This comment requests that the Draft EIR address all requirements regarding the use, handling, storage, or disposal of hazardous wastes and materials that are commonly used in construction and grading projects.

The use, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes and materials are discussed in Section 4.4, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR. The requirements governing the use, handling, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste or hazardous material that are commonly used in construction and grading projects include federal laws and regulations such as the Federal Toxic Substances Control Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Parts 100-185) described on Page 4.3-4 of the Draft EIR; the U.S. Coast Guard regulations under CFR, Title 33 and 46 that regulate vessel transportation of hazardous materials and storage at marine terminals, as well as spill response as discussed on Page 4.3-5 of the Draft EIR; and the regulation of handling of hazardous wastes under the Occupational Safety and Health Act on Page 4.3-5 of the Draft EIR. State laws listed in the Draft EIR include the California Health and Safety Code Section 25100 et seq. including the Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program that provides authority to the local


4-36 August 2016

ICF 172.14



CUPA and requires a hazardous materials business plan when certain thresholds are triggered for stored hazardous substances, employee regulations under Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, and construction water quality best management practices as required by the State Water Resources Control Board Construction General Permit. Local regulations include San Diego County Code of Regulatory Ordinances under Title 6, Division 8, Chapters 8 through 11 establishes the HMD as the local CUPA and provides oversight rights to HMD. Therefore, the Draft EIR includes a thorough discussion of the applicable laws and regulations that address the handling, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials.

No changes are required in the Final EIR.

Comment E-3:

This comment notes that any contamination encountered on the project site must be managed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and notes that HMD is aware of several current and past contaminated property site assessment investigations within or near the project area and notes it is very likely soil contamination will be encountered in the area.

The Draft EIR acknowledges the potential to encounter contaminated soils. However, the areas that would be graded are limited to the tank farm site that received closure status from HMD, the street closure sites at 28th Street, Quay Avenue, and 32nd Street, and possibly the former Weyerhaeuser Site. As stated on Page 4.3-12 of the Draft EIR:

“Although unlikely, there is a possibility that construction activities (i.e., grading and excavation) related to the project may encounter residual soil contamination as a result of the site’s environmental history. As noted in the closure letter from DEH, if previously unidentified contamination is discovered, additional site assessment and cleanup would be required (County of San Diego 2009), pursuant to the existing laws summarized under Section 4.3.3, Applicable Laws and Regulations. In addition, the


4-37 August 2016

ICF 172.14



project area potentially contains residual contamination from the former National City Dump (also known as Davis Dump), a former burn dump disposal site. Potentially elevated levels of metals associated with burn ash may be encountered anywhere in the project area and may be hazardous to the health of construction workers that come into contact with these metals (Impact-HAZ-1). Incorporation of construction BMPs required by the project SWPPP and the District’s JRMP would minimize site runoff that could carry any existing contaminants off site, and compliance with worker safety laws and regulations, such as those enforced by OSHA and the County of San Diego DEH requirements, would minimize human exposure to potential residual contaminants. However, MM-HAZ-1 is required to ensure that any discovery of burn ash is handled according to existing laws, including CFR 1910.120 and CCR Title 22 and Title 27.”

Mitigation measure MM-HAZ-1 requires preparation of a Site-Specific Site Safety and Health Plan to address potential burn ash presence and any other possible contaminants. The mitigation measure includes a requirement that the HMD, as the local CUPA, shall be notified if any apparent contamination is encountered and prior to any continuation of soil disturbance. No changes are required in the Final EIR

Comment E-4:

This comment states that if the project proposes to reuse any contaminated soil, that a Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) permit may be required from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

The tank farm site, which is the site that the commenter is referencing, is the only site that has excess soil. The 2009 DEH closure letter indicated that the site cleanup goals had been met for the site. The tank farm site has raised soil berms which require grading for site redevelopment. As indicated in the EIR, the excess soils on the tank farm site are proposed to be used to raise the elevation of the


4-38 August 2016

ICF 172.14



adjacent street closures sites (Quay Avenue and 28th Street). There is no anticipated change in land use at the site, as was evaluated in the 2009 closure. Therefore, no further environmental testing is anticipated and no WDR permit is required. Further, if any permits are required from agencies other than the District, the District requires the Project Applicant obtain all applicable permits pursuant to federal, state, regional, and local laws and regulations.


Comment E-5:

This comment requests that air monitoring be included in the Draft EIR to ensure fugitive emissions from grading activities do not pose a threat to human health.

Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-1 has been updated to include a requirement specific to air quality monitoring as part of the Site-Specific Site Safety and Health Plan. Please see Chapter 3, Errata and Revisions, of this Final EIR. The clarification to this mitigation measure does not require recirculation as it is not significant new information and does not constitute a new significant impact because, pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, the new information added to the Final EIR does not deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the District has declined to implement.

Comment E-6:

This comment notes that the demolition of the two structures within the Weyerhaeuser property needs to be managed in accordance with applicable requirements if hazardous materials/wastes are encountered. The potential to encounter hazardous materials associated with the former Weyerhaeuser site is addressed on Page 4.3-13 of the Draft EIR, which reads:

“… demolition of the 20,000-square-foot warehouse at the former Weyerhaeuser site would require compliance with Title 8, Industrial Relations, of the California Code of Regulations.


4-39 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Compliance would ensure removal of any [asbestos containing materials] and/or lead-based paint would be conducted in a safe manner, including proper disposal in an approved facility. In addition, treated wood building materials would be tested, handled, and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. Also, there is a record of site contamination in proximity to the existing warehouse and office building during the time of the former Western Lumber Company site (i.e., former Weyerhaeuser site) at 2745 Tidelands Avenue. Excavation and grading are not anticipated to encounter any contaminated soils given the site was remediated and closed in 2000 and considering only limited grading would occur to allow for demolition of the structures and repaving the surface lot. However, as mentioned above, compliance with 29 CFR 1910.120 and CCR Title 22 and Title 27 is required by law and steps to help ensure its implementation are provided with MM-HAZ-1. As specified, MM-HAZ-1 would necessitate a site-specific site safety and health plan and a soil and groundwater management plan to further minimize any exposure to construction workers. Moreover, the proposed real estate agreement with the District that would allow Pasha to occupy the site, as well as the CDP that would be required for development of the site, would require Pasha to comply with all such laws and regulations.”


Comment E-7:

This comment notes that the HMD has the authority pursuant to State Law and County Code to inspect facilities with hazardous materials or hazardous wastes and take enforcement action for non-compliance. The comment concludes by thanking the District for the opportunity to comment and requesting that Department of Environmental Health (DEH) be added as an interested party for future notifications and environmental documents associated with the project.

As noted in several locations within the Draft EIR, HMD has authority


4-40 August 2016

ICF 172.14



to take enforcement action for non-compliance. The District is committed to ensuring all projects follow all existing laws and regulations and, as required by MM-HAZ-1, is committed to making sure HMD is notified if any hazardous substances or possible soil contamination is encountered during construction and grading activities. DEH will remain on the interested party list for any future notifications and environmental documents associated with this project. No changes are required in the Final EIR as a result of this comment.


4-41 August 2016

ICF 172.14



4.2.6 Letter F – SANDAG

Comment F-1:

This comment in an introduction to the comment letter and notes that SANDAG’s comments are based on the policies included in the San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan.

The District appreciates SANDAG’s interest in the proposed project. The District’s responses to specific related comments are provided below.

Comment F-2:

This comment acknowledges the District’s incorporation of information within the Draft EIR in response to SANDAG’s comments submitted during the Notice of Preparation comment period.

Because the commenter is simply acknowledging that the District incorporated the information requested by SANDAG during the scoping process, no changes are required in the Final EIR as a result of this comment.

Comment F-3:

This comment encourages the District to upgrade or replace locomotives or truck tractors to reduce impacts to air quality associated with the project. The comment notes that opportunities for these upgrades may exist through collaborative financing strategies, Port Capital Improvement Programs, Good Movement Emissions Reduction Program funds, terminal operator/carrier investments or other funding sources.

The District is committed to find ways to further reduce air emissions in the region. The District’s Clean Air Program includes measures such as shore power, truck and cargo handling equipment replacement/retrofits, and vessel speed reduction for ocean-going vessels. Trains that access NCMT are owned and operated by BNSF. These locomotives operate under two agreements that limit


4-42 August 2016

ICF 172.14



emissions from terminal operations (from idling, etc.) and require BNSF to operate and maintain a Tier 2 locomotive fleet through 2030. As noted in Section 4.1.3.3, Page 4.1-16, of the Draft EIR, the BNSF fleet already exceeds this Tier 2 requirement, and over time will continue to improve as new locomotives enter the fleet through natural fleet turnover as existing locomotives reach the end of their useful life. Moreover, vehicle cargo operations do not utilize yard tractors at NCMT, but Pasha Automotive Services, the project applicant, was one of multiple District tenants that were recently awarded a grant from California Energy Commission (CEC) to purchase zero and near-zero terminal equipment. (Pasha Automotive Services specifically was awarded grant funds for the operation of a Class-8 electric yard truck.) Further, Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1 reduces the air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, no additional mitigation is necessary to reduce the project’s air quality impacts even further beyond the less-than-significant impact determination. (See Section 15041 of the CEQA Guidelines: a lead agency for a project has authority to require feasible changes in any or all activities involved in the project in order to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment, consistent with applicable constitutional requirements such as the “nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards established by case law [Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825, Dolan v. City of Tigard, (1994) 512 U.S. 374, Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, (1996) 12 Cal. 4th 854].) No changes are required in the Final EIR.

Comment F-4:

This comment provides an address where future environmental documents can be sent. The comment also acknowledges appreciation for the opportunity to comment and provides a contact if there are any questions.

The District appreciates SANDAG’s review of the EIR and will continue to send any future environmental documents regarding this project to the contact identified in this letter.

No changes are required in the Final EIR as a result of this comment.


4-43 August 2016

ICF 172.14



4.2.7 Letter G – City of National City

Comment G-1:

This comment notes that the City is supportive of the proposed project, but recommends that components of the proposed project be addressed as part of the “Balanced Plan” for reasons provided within the letter.

The comment is noted and will be passed along to the Board of Port Commissioners. To clarify for readers of these responses to comments, the City’s September 2015 “Balanced Plan with Mitigation and Enhancements for National City” will be hereinafter referred to as “City’s Balanced Plan,” and the District’s Balanced Land Use Plan (a plan for which the Board of Port Commissioners directed staff to start the CEQA review process in April 2016), will be hereinafter referred to as the “April 2016 Balanced Land Use Plan” or “Balanced Land Use Plan.” This comment is referring to the Balanced Land Use Plan. The District’s specific responses to the City’s specific comments are included in the responses that follow.

Comment G-2:

This comment requests that the District consider the adoption of one of the project alternatives without the proposed Marine Related Industrial Overlay. The comment notes that existing vehicle storage operations may continue on the subject lots within the City’s jurisdiction with a use permit which the City has approved in the past and is amenable to the storage use while the Balanced Land Use Plan is jointly underway between the District and the City. Additionally, the comment expresses its support of the proposed street closures and City public review process for street vacations consistent with the California Streets and Highways code.

The District, as part of the proposed project, would incorporate two of the project sites into the PMP. The sites are referred to collectively


4-44 August 2016

ICF 172.14



as the Uplands Properties;1 they are located within the coastal zone, and are owned by the District. Please see response to Comment D-3 for a historical discussion of how the Uplands Properties were incorporated into the City’s land use jurisdiction and why they are proposed to be incorporated into the District’s PMP pursuant to the existing regulatory framework.

One of these properties, the eastern portion of Lot K, would have the Marine Related Industrial Overlay added to allow for continued consistency with the existing maritime operations on that property. Similarly and in addition, Port Parcel 028-007 would also have the Marine Related Industrial Overlay added because it, too, is currently and has historically been used for maritime operations by Pasha. By including the Marine Related Industrial Overlay with the PMPA for incorporation of the two Uplands Properties, the District would ensure these two existing maritime operations are permitted by the District’s PMP until the earlier of either a commercial recreation project is approved by the Board of Port Commissioners or 7 years occurs from the time of the proposed PMPA’s final approval. Additionally, the District retains its discretion to approve, after appropriate CEQA review, an independent project with different objectives—like the Balanced Land Use Plan—that may supplant the proposed project.

The City encourages the District to adopt an alternative without the Marine Related Industrial Overlay. The alternatives that do not include the Overlay are Alternative 1, Redevelop NCMT Tank Farm Only (No Renewal of Short-Term Permits), and Alternative 4, No Marine Related Industrial Overlay. Additionally, Alternative 3, Remove Port Parcel 028-007 from the Project, would include a reduced Overlay only over the eastern portion of Lot K. (See Chapter 7 of the Draft EIR for more details.) All these alternatives would incorporate the Uplands Properties into the PMP. Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 would include a Commercial Recreation land use designation on the Uplands Properties, which is consistent with the regulatory framework but does not meet the project’s basic objectives, as discussed in more detail below. Also, note that these sites would likely sit vacant until a

1 The Uplands Properties are east of the mean high tide line and the District’s historic tidelands, as shown on Figure 4.5-2 of the Draft EIR.


4-45 August 2016

ICF 172.14



project is proposed and entitled. Alternative 3 would incorporate the Uplands Properties into the PMP with the Overlay on Lot K.

Alternative 1 did not meet several of the project’s basic objectives. It would not meet Objective 1 because this alternative would not allow Pasha to meet future market demands in the short term and immediate future if market demand exceeds the available storage area, which would be likely. It would not meet Objective 2 because it would limit economic benefits by substantially reducing the number of vehicles that can be stored at the areas beyond the NCMT. It would also not meet Objective 3 because if market demand does require vehicles beyond the storage capacity of this alternative, the additional vehicles may be imported to alternative locations or, given the limited alternatives at the Port of San Diego, Pasha may leave the port altogether for a more accommodating arrangement at a competing port. This alternative would only partially meet project Objective 4 because it would not allow Pasha to continue uses at marine-related industrial sites that are consistent with the Public Trust Doctrine and usage of these sites in the near term is uncertain if Pasha is unable to use them. This alternative would also not meet Objective 5 because the Marine Related Industrial Overlay, which was proposed to be provided specifically to allow marine related industrial uses for up to 7 years or until a Commercial Recreation development is approved, would not be incorporated into the PMPA as part of this alternative, so no marine-related industrial uses would be allowed on the Overlay parcels under this alternative and less flexibility would be provided. Therefore, this alternative would not meet the project’s basic objectives.

Alternative 3 would generally meet project Objectives 2, 4, and 6, but only partially meet Objective 1 because it may not allow Pasha to meet future market demands in the short-term and immediate future if market demand exceeds the available storage area, which is likely. It would also only partially meet Objective 3 because if market demand does require vehicles beyond the storage capacity of this alternative, the additional vehicles may be imported to alternative locations or, given the limited alternatives at the Port of San Diego, Pasha may leave the port altogether for a more accommodating


4-46 August 2016

ICF 172.14



arrangement at a competing port. Finally, this alternative would only partially meet Objective 5 because it would not provide needed flexibility to meet current or future needs. Specifically, it would halt maritime operations on a District parcel surrounded on several sides by similar marine-related industrial land uses and effectively place the District parcel in a state of non-use until at some unknown future time a development proposal, consistent with the Commercial Recreation land use designation, is submitted to the District, undergoes environmental review to ensure compliance with CEQA, and is approved by Board of Port Commissioners. Therefore, this alternative would not achieve the project’s basic objectives.

Alternative 4 did not meet several of the basic project objectives. Specifically, it would only partially meet Objective 1 because it would not allow Pasha to meet future market demands in the short term and immediate future if market demand exceeds the available storage area, which is likely. It would also only partially meet Objective 3 because if market demand does require vehicles beyond the storage capacity of what is provided with this alternative, the additional vehicles may be imported to alternative locations or, given the limited alternatives at the Port of San Diego, Pasha may leave the port altogether for a more accommodating arrangement at a competing port. Finally, the alternative would only partially meet Objective 5 because it would not provide needed flexibility to meet current or future needs. Specifically, it would halt maritime operations on two properties (eastern half of Lot K and Port Parcel 028-007) that have historically been used for Pasha’s maritime operations and are surrounded on several sides by similar marine related industrial land uses and effectively place these properties in a state of non-use until at some unknown future time a development proposal, consistent with the Commercial Recreation land use designation, is submitted to the District, undergoes environmental review to ensure compliance with CEQA, and is approved by the Board of Port Commissioners. Therefore, this alternative would not achieve the project’s basic objectives. No changes are required in the Final EIR as a result of this comment.

Regarding the proposed street closures and the City’s request for a


4-47 August 2016

ICF 172.14



street vacation process, these streets are “private streets.” The original conveyance, among other things, conveyed two of the three streets at-issue (Quay Avenue (between Bay Marina Drive [previously 24th Street] and 28th Street) and 28th Street (west of Quay Ave) (See the original conveyance as Appendix I to the Final EIR). While the process for ceasing the use of the streets will not have an environmental impact, the District notes that the City’s comment appears to be misreading the 1963 deed and related agreement. The “Streets” section of the 1963 transfer agreement between the City of National City and the District states in pertinent part:

“All streets located on the lands being conveyed District by this agreement, except for those streets heretofore dedicated to public use, shall henceforth belong to the District and shall be designated ‘private streets’ . . . In the event any streets are required in said area for general public use, such streets will be constructed to existing City standard and specification by District, and shall be designated ‘public streets.’ District shall dedicate, and City shall accept, all such ‘public streets.’”

The plain language of the conveyance document states these streets, which include Quay Avenue and 28th Street, are “private streets” and not required to be dedicated. It should be noted that 32nd Street (west of Tidelands Avenue) did not exist at the time of conveyance. It was not a street “required in said area for general public use” within the meaning of the 1963 transfer agreement. Additionally, it was built by the District in or about 1967 with the intent of it being a private road, and the street is maintained by the District as such. Under the limiting language of the 1963 transfer agreement (i.e., all streets located on the lands being conveyed are private streets unless they are dedicated to public use), 32nd Street is a private street. Accordingly, a street vacation pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code is not required.

No changes to the EIR are required.

Comment G-3:


4-48 August 2016

ICF 172.14



This comment recommends that any proposed land use changes should be considered in conjunction with the development of the Balanced Land Use Plan as it is a comprehensive plan for the Marina District and District Tidelands. Additionally, the comment suggests that the cumulative impact analysis include any potential impacts relevant to the Balanced Land Use Plan in the area of Land Use and Planning and should be reflected in the Draft EIR.

See the response to Comments D-2 and G-2, which explain why the proposed project is incorporating the two Uplands Properties into the Port Master Plan and why one of those two properties (i.e., the eastern half of Lot K) and Port Parcel 028-007 are being proposed with a Marine Related Industrial Overlay as part of the overall PMPA action.

On April 14, 2016, the Board of Port Commissioners directed District staff to start the CEQA review process for the Balanced Land Use Plan referred to in this comment. This direction came 2 weeks prior to commencement of public review for the “NCMT Tank Farm Paving and Street Closures Project & PMPA” Draft EIR. The Balanced Land Use Plan has not been adopted by the Board of Port Commissioners or certified by the California Coastal Commission. Please note that an EIR is not required to analyze a project’s consistency with draft land use plans (Chaparral Greens v. City of Chula Vista, 50 Cal. App. 4th 1134 (1996)).

CEQA requires that an EIR analyze cumulative impacts from past, current, and probable future projects (CEQA Guideline Section 15065(a)(3)). “CEQA does not require that an EIR consider the potential cumulative impacts of every proposed future project; it requires only that an EIR consider the cumulative impacts of ‘probable future projects’” (City of Maywood v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 208 Cal. App. 4th 362 (2012)). There is not an ironclad rule delineating what constitutes “probable future projects.” However, a standard of practicality and reasonableness applies (City of Maywood v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 208 Cal. App. 4th 362 (2012); San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City & County of San Francisco, 151 Cal. App. 3d 61 (1984)).


4-49 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Projects currently undergoing environmental review may be probable foreseeable projects (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City & County of San Francisco, 151 Cal. App. 3d 61 (1984)). Environmental review normally starts with the issuance of a Notice of Preparation. However, the mere issuance of a Notice of Preparation and statements that an agency is studying a project may not be enough for the project to be considered a “probable future project” (City of Maywood v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 208 Cal. App. 4th 362 (2012)). Moreover, even if a project is under environmental review, the particular “environmental review” at issue must provide evidence that the future project is both probable and sufficiently certain to allow for meaningful cumulative impacts analysis (Id.).

Importantly, because projects are constantly being fed into the environmental review process, it is appropriate for a lead agency to establish a reasonable cutoff date as to when a list of cumulative projects is established for a particular EIR (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City & County of San Francisco, 151 Cal. App. 3d 61 (1984); Gray v. County of Madera, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1099 (2008)). Hence, it is reasonable for a lead agency “to set the date of the application for the current [p]roject as the cutoff date to determine which projects should be included in the cumulative impacts analysis” (Gray v. County of Madera, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1099 (2008) (emphasis added)).

Here, the District set the date for the inclusion of “probable future projects” as the end of the scoping period for the revised NOP (September 28, 2015), which is a reasonable cutoff date to consider cumulative projects. The City of National City’s scoping comments, which the District received during the revised NOP scoping period, included the City’s Balanced Plan as a cumulative project and hence, it was added as a cumulative project. On April 14, 2016, 2 weeks prior to release of the draft EIR, the Board directed staff to commence environmental review of the 2016 Balanced Land Use Plan. A cutoff date 2 weeks prior to publication of the Draft EIR for public review is unreasonable to consider “probable future projects” as it would not enable the District to fully and adequately analyze cumulative impacts and, in this case, was also months after the scoping period.


4-50 August 2016

ICF 172.14



The Balanced Land Use Plan was not in existence when the proposed project’s revised NOP was issued and hence, was not considered as a “probable future project.” While the Board of Commissioners directed District staff to start the CEQA process for the 2016 Balanced Land Use Plan 2 weeks prior to circulation of the Draft EIR, a contract to start the Balanced Land Use Plan’s environmental review has not been awarded and a NOP has not been issued and hence environmental review has not commenced. Moreover, the application for the Tank Farm project, including the street closures was submitted to the District in 2013 and the project was modified (to add the Weyerhaeuser site and 32nd Street closure) in mid-2015.

However, the City’s Balanced Plan, dated September 1, 2015, was included as a cumulative project in the Draft EIR. (Please see Project 11 listed in Table 5-2 within Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts, of the Draft EIR.) The 2016 Balanced Land Use Plan is almost identical to the City’s Balanced Plan for the area within the District’s jurisdiction with the exception of Marina Way being realigned to the west, and the southern terminus of Tidelands Avenue being shifted to the east to accommodate a reconfigured first point of rest due to the westerly expansion of Pepper Park. Note that both plans cannot be simultaneously implemented as they cover some of the same land. However, within the District’s jurisdiction, the 2016 Balanced Land Use Plan is generally consistent with the City’s Balanced Plan, which is Cumulative Project 11 in the Draft EIR. Both plans include a park expansion, an increase in commercial uses, the addition of a connector rail track, and maintaining maritime uses within the Marina District. Both plans would provide adequate physical access to the area, including emergency access through Marina Way. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be substantially the same for both the City’s Balanced Plan and the 2016 Balanced Land Use Plan, and having the 2016 Balanced Land Use Plan as an additional cumulative project in this EIR would be redundant (both plans could not be implemented concurrently either as they contemplate slightly different land use configurations). Even if Cumulative Project 11 was updated to be the 2016 Balanced Land Use Plan instead of the City’s Balanced Plan, the conclusion of the Draft EIR would not change.


4-51 August 2016

ICF 172.14




Comment G-4:

This comment suggests that the inclusion of renewing short-term use permits as part of the project is piecemealing and an inappropriate segmentation of the Balanced Land Use Plan. The comment notes that the short-term use of these parcels are part of the land uses to be addressed in the overall Balanced Land Use Plan.

The short-term use permit sites are currently used for maritime operations and require renewal for continued use. The proposed project is a maritime project with objectives that seek to help meet market demand for the importation of automobiles. The short-term use sites would continue to provide critical space for these maritime operations and would help achieve the project objectives. Additionally, CEQA review is required for renewal of any short-term use permits. Because the short-term permits are up for renewal, the potential renewal of these short-term use permits was added to the EIR to provide a more comprehensive environmental analysis.

The Balanced Land Use Plan has not been approved by the Board of Port Commissioners. In April 2016, the Board directed staff to start the CEQA review for the Balanced Land Use Plan, but provided no approval of the plan nor made any decision that would be considered a commitment to approve the plan. The proposed project and the Balanced Land Use Plan are two distinct projects with separate utility. In fact, the proposed project and the 2016 Balanced Land Use Plan would serve different purposes.

CEQA requires environmental review of the whole of the project. Piecemealing occurs when a project is analyzed over several environmental reviews instead of in a single analysis, resulting in “environmental considerations [to] become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones—each with a minimal potential impact on the environment—which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences” (Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of


4-52 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Newport Beach, 211 Cal. App. 4th 1209 (2012)).

Just because two projects cover the same geographic location with different project features does not mean piecemealing has occurred. Rather, there are several well-established factors to make this determination. For a future expansion of a project, lead agencies look to whether: (1) the later project is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and (2) the future expansion or action will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, 47 Cal. 3d 376, (1988)). The facts of each case will determine whether, and to what extent, an EIR must analyze future expansion or other action (Id.). Additional factors include whether the project under review compels or practically presumes completion of the later project (Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach, 211 Cal. App. 4th 1209 (2012); Nelson v. County of Kern, 190 Cal. App. 4th 252 (2010)). Conversely, two projects may properly undergo separate environmental review with no piecemealing when the projects have (1) different proponents, (2) serve different purposes, or (3) can be implemented independently (Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach, 211 Cal. App. 4th 1209 (2012) (emphasis added)).

The proposed project does not compel or presume the implementation of the Balanced Land Use Plan; nor is it being approved to induce the approval of the Balanced Land Use Plan. The entirety of Lot K would not be able to be used by Pasha under the Balanced Land Use Plan, as proposed, even on a temporary basis. The Balanced Land Use Plan changes the amount and configuration of commercial recreation, marine terminal, marine related industrial, street, and park/plaza land uses and would not enable Pasha to meet its immediate needs to continue operating as it currently does on the eastern half of Lot K and Port Parcel 028-007. Under the Balanced Land Use Plan, short-term use permits would not be able to be issued to Pasha for several of the parcels contemplated for inclusion in the Balanced Land Use Plan. For these same reasons, the two projects must be implemented independently. Regardless of what ultimately happens with the proposed 2016 Balanced Land Use Plan, the District


4-53 August 2016

ICF 172.14



may move forward with approval of the proposed project and may implement it.

Moreover, the 2016 Balanced Land Use Plan and the proposed project have different project proponents. The proposed project proponent is Pasha Automotive Services. The City and the District are the project proponents for the Balanced Land Use Plan and are driving the project description for the plan. Although Pasha has submitted incomplete project applications related to specific projects that are shown as part of the Balanced Land Use Plan—the closure of Tidelands Avenue and the improved rail track—neither of those projects are the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the proposed project and in fact, were added to the CEQA analysis for the 2016 Balanced Land Use Plan to increase CEQA efficiencies and at the City’s request. They were originally planned to have separate project-level CEQA reviews. The proposed project does not compel or presume the closure of Tidelands Avenue or the construction of the rail track.

Moreover, the two projects serve different purposes. The proposed project is intended to maximize the area/acreage adjacent to NCMT that Pasha can use for its vehicle cargo operations to meet the increasing market demands. This demand is immediate. The Balanced Land Use Plan is intended to balance the maritime and commercial recreational uses within the District’s jurisdiction in the City of National City. The Balanced Land Use Plan, if approved, would decrease the acreage available to Pasha. For all reasons cited, piecemealing has not occurred.

Finally, the City’s Balanced Plan, which included the rail improvements, and the closure of Tidelands Avenue, is considered in the cumulative impact analysis. Also see response to Comment G-3 regarding the cumulative impacts from the 2016 Balanced Land Use Plan.


Comment G-5:

This comment recommends that the District include and address Port Parcel 025-010-D/Lot K and Port Parcel 027-047 as part of the April


4-54 August 2016

ICF 172.14



2016 Balanced Land Use Plan project in an effort to be consistent with the amendments to the City’s Harbor District Specific Area Plan and other land use plans. Additionally, the comment notes that including the B-1 (i.e., Port Parcel 027-047) and B-2 (i.e., Port Parcel 025-010-D/Lot K) sites circumvents the CEQA process and contends that the overlay associated with the B-2 site is inconsistent with the City’s Harbor District Specific Area Plan, General Plan, Land Use Map, Zoning Map and the April 2016 Balanced Land Use Plan. Lastly, the comment notes that the proposed overlay regarding Port Parcel 028-007 is inconsistent with the April 2016 Balanced Land Use Plan.

Please see the response to Comments D-2, G-2, and G-4, which discuss why the regulatory framework supports the District’s inclusion of the Upland Properties into the PMP and how the proposed project and the 2016 Balanced Land Use Plan are separate distinct projects. Moreover, consistency with the City’s Harbor District Specific Area Plan, along with other land use plans, was considered in the Draft EIR. Please see Page 4.5-12 of the Draft EIR, which provides a consistency analysis between the Commercial Recreation land use designation of the Port Master Plan and the Tourist Commercial land use designation of the Harbor District Specific Area Plan. As noted in that analysis, both land use designations are very similar and allow the same types of land uses, and both the PMPA and the City’s Harbor District Specific Area Plan allow for Pasha’s proposed use on the B-2 parcel (i.e., the area of Port Parcel 025-010-D/Lot K located east of the mean high tide line). Nonetheless, the PMPA, by its very nature, would ensure land use consistency of the proposed project, which is why amendments to land use plans are initiated, to ensure consistency of a project with the governing land use plan. To clarify any confusion over the land use jurisdiction of the B-1 (i.e., Port Parcel 027-047) and B-2 (i.e., the area of Port Parcel 025-010-D/Lot K located east of the mean high tide line) parcels, the following footnote has been added to the PMP amendment text:

The National City Bayfront: Planning District 5 Precise Plan supersedes any other conflicting local planning documents or regulation, including, without limitation, the City of National City’s Harbor District Specific Area Plan and associated zoning,


4-55 August 2016

ICF 172.14



for the area delineated in Planning District 5.

Additionally, the Board of Port Commissioners has not approved—conditionally or otherwise—the 2016 Balanced Land Use Plan or the City’s Balanced Plan. Contrary to the comment, the area of Parcel 025-010-D/Lot K located east of the mean high tide line and Port Parcel 027-047 are contemplated in the Balanced Land Use Plan and proposed uses for these areas may be considered by the Board of Port Commissioners once CEQA review is completed.


Comment G-6:

This comment notes that the proposed inclusion of the B-1 (i.e., Port Parcel 027-047) and B-2 (i.e., the area of Port Parcel 025-010-D/Lot K located east of the mean high tide line) parcels into the PMP does not transfer land use jurisdiction over the properties to the Port in the absence of any City amendments to the existing plans. The comment notes that the proposed project does not provide the opportunity for City land use plan amendments to be considered as part of a joint planning effort between the Port and the City.

Please see responses to Comments D-2 and G-5. Please also note that the MOUs did not specify any further terms or conditions upon which the Uplands Properties could be incorporated into the PMP, such as a joint planning effort between the District and City. As stated in response to Comment G-5, text has been added to the PMPA as a result of this comment to clarify the land use jurisdiction of the parcels at issue. No changes are required in the Final EIR as a result of this comment.

Comment G-7:

This comment notes that the implementation of the marine related industrial overlay would be inconsistent with the Board of Commissioners’ recent action on the Balanced Land Use Plan. Additionally, the comment notes that including these sites into the project would piece-meal the Balanced Land Use Plan and would create inconsistencies with the Balanced Land Use Plan as well as


4-56 August 2016

ICF 172.14



other City land use plans. The comment requests that the Port examine these parcels as part of the Balanced Land Use Plan and remove them from the project. Finally, the comment requests that the Port consider the alternatives that include removing the overlay zone as part of the Tank Farm project and instead address the overlay as part of the Balanced Land Use Plan. The comment notes that the City could approve a use permit for lot B-2 (i.e., Port Parcel 025-010-D/Lot K).

Please see responses to Comments G-2 regarding Alternatives without the Overlay, G-4 regarding alleged piecemealing and the two separate projects, and G-5, adding a clarification to the project to clarify perceived land use conflicts.

Please note that although the EIR includes the Overlay, the Board of Port Commissioners may certify the EIR, but then direct staff in a variety of ways or make a variety of approvals provided such direction is consistent with the environmental analysis in the EIR (see also the Project Description, page 3-7, addressing the Balanced Land Use Plan and the Board’s options for approvals). For example, the Board could request that the PMPA for the Overlay be submitted to the Coastal Commission at a later date to allow the City and the District to continue discussions regarding the Overlay.

Additionally, the proposed project’s Overlay is not inconsistent with the direction taken by the Board of Port Commissioners in April 2016. At that meeting, the Board requested staff to start CEQA review for the Balanced Land Use Plan. They did not approve or commit in any way land use changes or any component of the Balanced Land Use Plan and cannot and will not until after appropriate CEQA review is conducted and considered by the Board.

While the City could issue a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and CDP for Pasha’s continued use of the property (the area of Port Parcel 025-010-D/Lot K located east of the mean high tide line), this may be contrary to the regulatory framework discussed in response to comment D-2. Additionally, the proposed project would grant the District coastal act permitting jurisdiction, enabling the District to issue a CDP for operation on the project sites.


4-57 August 2016

ICF 172.14




Comment G-8:

This comment requests that any proposed land use changes should be considered in conjunction with the development of the Balanced Plan due to the fact that it is a comprehensive plan for the Marina District and District Tidelands. The comment requests that the Balanced Plan be considered in the cumulative impacts analysis of the Land Use and Planning impacts.

Please see responses to Comments G-3 regarding cumulative analysis, G-4 regarding the nature of the projects, and G-7 regarding inclusion of the proposed project in the Balanced Land Use Plan and the ability of the Board of Port Commissioners regarding flexibility in making approvals. No changes are required in the Final EIR.

Comment G-9:

This comment notes a potential discrepancy concerning Quay Avenue, 28th Street, and 32nd Street as they are listed as non-dedicated District streets or roads in the project yet shown as public rights-of-way in the Tideland Conveyance to the District in 1963. The comment notes that street vacations must go through a City public review process consistent with California Streets and Highways Code Sections 8320-8325. A map was attached as reference.

Please see response to Comment G-2, which addresses the roadways and the fact that street vacations are not required. No changes are required to the Final EIR as a result of this comment.

Comment G-10:

This comment requests that the baseline condition for project impact analysis for Lot K should be the last date the land use was legally permitted pursuant to the applicable coastal development permit and conditional use permit (CDP-1999-2/CUP-1999-3). The baseline in CEQA documents, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, indicates that:


4-58 August 2016

ICF 172.14



“An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant.”

Pursuant to Section 15125 of the CEQA Guidelines, 2013 was used as the baseline condition for the project.

A baseline for a CEQA analysis must reflect current conditions at the project site (Citizens for East Shore Parks v. California State Lands Commission, 202 Cal. App. 4th 549 (2011) (citing Communities For A Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist., 48 Cal. 4th 310 (2010)). This well-established CEQA principle applies even when the actual physical conditions were in violation of current regulatory provisions (Id.; see also, Riverwatch v. County of San Diego, 76 Cal. App. 4th 1428 (1999) [CEQA baseline included illegal development at mining operation seeking use permit]; Fat v. County of Sacramento, 97 Cal. App. 4th 1270 (2002), [holding use of CEQA baseline incorporating 30 years of unauthorized and illegal development was within County’s discretion]; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Eureka, 147 Cal. App. 4th 357 (2007) [code violations in construction of existing playground “was not a CEQA consideration”]). Accordingly, the EIR correctly took into account the existing conditions at the time the NOP was published with averaging of some aspects to accurately reflect baseline conditions considering the fluctuation of Pasha’s operations and to account for a worst case scenario (see San Francisco Baykeeper v. California State Lands Commission, 242 Cal. App. 4th 202 (2015)) and the proposed project conservatively assumed a maximum theoretical throughput capacity for the analysis.



4-59 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Comment G-11:

This comment requests that the roadway segment traffic analysis for all scenarios should include Marina Way and West 32nd Street, particularly when analyzing cumulative traffic impacts due to closure of Tidelands Avenue south of Bay Marina Drive.

As shown in Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4 of the Traffic Impact Study, the proposed project is not anticipated to generate any additional traffic onto Marina Way or West 32nd Street. Therefore, those roadways were not included within the project study area.

Additionally, it should be noted that the closure of Tidelands Avenue (south of Bay Marina Drive) is not a proposed feature of this project. Rather, it was included as a cumulative project (Project 10 listed in Table 5-2 within Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts, of the Draft EIR) because it was a tenant project submitted to the District in early 2015, before the revised NOP was issued. Hence, cumulative traffic impacts associated with the closure of Tidelands Avenue were analyzed in Section 5.3.7 of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR concluded that there would not be any significant cumulative traffic impacts associated with the proposed project if Tidelands Avenue was closed.


Comment G-12:

This comment notes that the cumulative traffic analysis scenarios do not appear to accurately reflect operations at the intersections of Bay Marina Drive and I-5 ramps. The comment requests that the study reports any improvements to LOS and delays at these two intersections. Additionally, the comment requests copies of the traffic signal analysis data sheets from Synchro or any other software programs used to analyze the study intersections for all scenarios to verify analysis results.

As noted in Tables 5.3 and 5.8 of the Traffic Impact Study, signal timing optimization was assumed under Near-Term conditions for both ramp intersections. Existing Signal Timing plans and peak hour


4-60 August 2016

ICF 172.14



intersection LOS calculation worksheets are provided in the following appendices of the Traffic Impact Study:

Appendix A Count Data and Signal Timing Plans Appendix C Peak Hour Intersection LOS Worksheets, ILV, and Queueing Worksheets – Existing Conditions Appendix F Peak Hour Intersection LOS Worksheets, ILV, and Queueing Worksheets – Existing Plus Project Conditions Appendix H Peak Hour Intersection LOS work Sheets, ILV, and Queueing Worksheets – Near-Term Year 2016 Base Conditions Appendix I Peak Hour Intersection LOS work Sheets, ILV, and Queueing Worksheets – Near-Term Year 2016 Plus Project Conditions Appendix K Peak Hour Intersection LOS Worksheets, ILV, and Queueing Worksheets – Future Year Base Conditions Appendix L Peak Hour Intersection LOS Worksheets, ILV, and Queueing Worksheets – Future Year Base Plus Project Conditions Appendix N Peak Hour Intersection LOS Worksheets, ILV, Queueing Worksheets – Future Year Base Appendix O Peak Hour Intersection LOS Worksheets, ILV, Queueing Worksheets – Future Year Plus Project

It should be noted that signal timing optimization was assumed for all intersections under Future Year conditions, as is common practice.

The Final EIR has been updated with clarification that indicates that all Future Year intersections assumed signal optimization. Please see Chapter 3, Errata and Revisions.

Comment G-13:

This comment requests additional clarity regarding the redistribution of traffic due to the closure of Tidelands Avenue south of Bay Marina Drive in the traffic analysis.

The assumed redistribution of traffic due to the closure of Tidelands Avenue is provided in Appendix M (Redistribution of Traffic with Tidelands Avenue, Quay Street & 28th Street) of the Traffic Impact


4-61 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Study. Please note that the full 2,800 trips were not redistributed since some of that traffic is associated with the terminal and would still take access via the closed portion of Tidelands Avenue, all of which is shown in Appendix M.


Comment G-14:

This comment notes that the project may have a cumulatively significant impact on emergency vehicle access under the Tidelands Avenue closure scenarios due to the fact that the project does not propose to contribute a fair share towards the realignment and reconstruction of Marina Way to accommodate emergency vehicles. Additionally, the comment notes that this area is not designated to accommodate emergency vehicles due to a series of speed humps and a narrowing of the roadway width at various locations.

The closure of Tidelands Avenue is not a proposed feature of this project. Rather, it may be a project feature of a project [on District tidelands] that is awaiting commencement of environmental review. The forthcoming EIR for the April 2016 Balanced Land Use Plan includes the potential closure of Tidelands Avenue (south of Bay Marina Drive) and would analyze the transportation related impacts associated with the closure of Tidelands Avenue between Bay Marina Drive and West 32nd Street, including any potential impacts along Marina Way. Moreover, the Balanced Land Use Plan assumes emergency access from Marina Way once Tidelands Avenue is closed, which would result in no cumulative impact to emergency access in the area.


Comment G-15:

This comment notes that the project may have a cumulatively significant impact on bicycle access under the Tidelands Avenue closure scenarios due to the fact that the project does not propose to contribute a fair share towards the realignment and reconstruction of the Bayshore Bikeway.


4-62 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Please see the response to Comment G-14. Further, as noted in Footnote 1 on Page 5-40 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would not cause impacts to bicycle access on Tidelands Avenue. Pursuant to the Board of Port Commissioners direction to staff on April 14, 2016, closure of Tidelands Avenue cannot be accomplished until the Bayshore Bikeway is relocated and operational. This issue will be further analyzed as part of the EIR that includes the April 2016 Balanced Land Use Plan, Tidelands Avenue Closure, and permanent alignment of the Bayshore Bikeway. No changes are required in the Final EIR.

Comment G-16:

This comment notes that the project may have a cumulatively significant impact on public parking under the Tidelands Avenue closure scenarios due to the fact that the project does not propose to contribute a fair share towards the relocation of public parking.

Please see the response to Comments D-7, G-14, and G-15. Additionally, the closure of Tidelands Avenue is considered in the cumulative impact analysis and cumulative impacts associated with displaced parking from the road closure are analyzed in Section 5.3.7 of the Draft EIR. That analysis determined that cumulative parking impacts are less than significant.


Comment G-17:

The commenter provides Tidelands Avenue and Bay Marina Way characteristics as it relates to the potential closure of Tidelands Avenue. Information provided includes details regarding the length and width between Bay Marina Way and Pepper Park. [Please note this comment incorrectly refers to “Bay Marina Way,” as the comment should actually note “Marina Way.”]

Marina Way is a roadway with two-way traffic (one lane in each direction), plus a sidewalk of varying widths on the east side. No portion of the Marina Way roadway is as narrow as 10 feet wide.


4-63 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Please see the response to Comment G-14, which indicates that the closure of Tidelands Avenue is not part of the proposed project, but could be a component of the project to be analyzed in the EIR that includes the April 2016 Balanced Land Use Plan, Tidelands Avenue Closure, and permanent alignment of the Bayshore Bikeway. No changes are required in the Final EIR.

Comment G-18:

The commenter notes the need for adequate access to the commercial and mixed uses located in the National City Bayfront area, including Pepper Park, Pier 32, and the Aquatic Center. The Commenter notes that only providing access via Marina Way would limit and slow accessibility.

Comment noted. It appears the commenter is raising the concern of limiting emergency access to the area due to the potential closure of Tidelands Avenue. Please note, as indicated in the response to Comment G-17, that the proposed project is not proposing to close Tidelands Avenue. Rather the analysis considers the closure of Tidelands Avenue as a reasonably foreseeable future project as part of the proposed project’s cumulative impact analysis. The proposed project would vacate portions of Quay Avenue, 28th Street and 32nd Street, but none of these street vacations would lead to fewer evacuation or emergency access routes. No revisions to the Final EIR are required.

Comment G-19:

The commenter provides information about obstructing egress or limiting egress to a single route. The comment also indicates that the fire code official can require more than one fire apparatus roadway based on potential impairment of the single road by various factors.

Comment noted. It appears the commenter is raising the concern of limiting emergency access to the area due to the potential closure of Tidelands Avenue. Please note, as indicated in the response to Comment G-17, that the proposed project is not proposing to close Tidelands Avenue. Rather the analysis considers the closure of Tidelands Avenue as a reasonably foreseeable future project as part


4-64 August 2016

ICF 172.14



of the proposed project’s cumulative impact analysis. The proposed project would vacate portions of Quay Avenue, 28th Street and 32nd Street, but none of these street vacations would lead to fewer evacuation or emergency access routes. No revisions to the Final EIR are required.

Comment G-20:

The commenter summarizes fire hazard statistics from the National Fire Protection Association.

Comment noted. No specific environmental issues associated with the proposed project is raised. Therefore, no response is required.

Comment G-21:

The commenter summarizes California Fire Code (CFC) requirements for road access.

Comment noted. The proposed project would be required to comply with all existing regulations, including the CFC. As this is a state requirement and not subject to discretionary actions on the part of the District, the proposed project would be required to comply and no updates to the Final EIR are required. Please note that it appears the commenter may be providing comments with regard to the closure of Tidelands Avenue. However, as noted in the response to Comment G-17, the proposed project does not propose closure of Tidelands Avenue, but only considers it as a cumulative project because it is public knowledge and there has been a longstanding interest by various parties to close Tidelands Avenue, making it a reasonably foreseeable project.

Comment G-22:

The comment mentions what is required of California Code of Regulations Title 19 Division 1 – 3.05 (A) (CCR): Required access roads.

Comment noted. The proposed project does not propose to close Tidelands Avenue. All road closures proposed by the project (a portion of Quay Avenue, a portion of 28th Street, and a portion of 32nd


4-65 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Street) would become part of the terminal. The proposed project would comply with all required state regulations, including CCR Title 19, Division 1, wherever applicable. Therefore, no changes to the Final EIR are required.


4-66 August 2016

ICF 172.14



4.2.8 Letter H – National City – The Chamber

Comment H-1:

This comment states that the National City Chamber of Commerce values the economic benefits of Pasha Automotive Services and the District to the City of National City and indicates that the Chamber has strived to maintain a balanced waterfront. The comment states support for the proposed project because of the employment, sales tax, revenue generation, and port revenue that would be provided by the project.


Comment H-2:

This comment notes that the intent of the Maritime Overlay may be addressed with administrative solutions and specific language included within the PMPA. The comment requests that District staff employ specific language to achieve desired land use requirements whereby commercial project(s) that are approved by the District and City of National City by given priority development over temporary maritime uses.

While the comment states that administrative solutions and specific language could be included in the PMPA, the comment excludes any such language for consideration. No changes are required in the Final EIR.


4-67 August 2016

ICF 172.14



4.2.9 Letter I – Environmental Health Coalition

Comment I-1:

This comment states that the National City Chamber of Commerce values the economic benefits of Pasha Automotive Services and the District to the City of National City and indicates that the Chamber has strived to maintain a balanced waterfront. The comment states support for the proposed project because of the employment, sales tax, revenue generation, and port revenue that would be provided by the project.


Comment I-2:

This comment states that the Draft EIR failed to estimate the worst-case impacts for the proposed project as it relates to air quality and health risk. The comment requests that the analysis incorporate both the proposed project and the Balanced Land Use Plan since both are needed to adequately assess the impact of Pasha import operations in the next decades over current conditions.

Please see response to Comment G-3, which addresses the cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project and the Balanced Land Use Plan. As analyzed on pages 5-8 through 5-11 of the Draft EIR, with implementation of mitigation measures MM-AQ-2, MM-AQ-3, MM-AQ-4 and MM-AQ-5, cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant.


Comment I-3:

This comment requests that the analysis include the estimates of the extra non-vehicular cargo handling, ship and truck movements that are occasionally handled at the project site. The comment notes that the project may facilitate an increase in throughput of non-vehicular cargo on the NCMT sites closer to the berths by providing additional acres for vehicle storage. The comment also notes that there is


4-68 August 2016

ICF 172.14



nothing in the project description that limits Pasha from increasing cargo volume.

As discussed on page 3-7 of the Draft EIR:

“Non-vehicle throughput (i.e., breakbulk and other general cargo) is handled on the NCMT, adjacent to Berth 24-1. On occasion, non-vehicle throughput may be handled on the tank farm, street closures, short-term use permit or former Weyerhaeuser sites, but such use is anticipated to be minimal given that, historically, the existing short-term use permit sites have been used solely for vehicle throughput and all non-vehicle throughput is handled on the NCMT. The primary reason these sites are not used for non-vehicle cargo is due to their distance from Berth 24-1, which makes them better suited to vehicle cargo. This division of goods storage is anticipated to continue in the future given it is a practical logistical consideration.

As shown in Tables 2-2 and 2-3, the amount of non-vehicle throughput is relatively minimal in Pasha’s overall operations and, as discussed above, is currently primarily handled on the NCMT. Moreover, some of the existing short-term use permits restrict the allowable use to only vehicle storage. As such, the project assumptions consider the reasonably foreseeable worst case scenario for the project site based on the maximum theoretical vehicle throughput.”

Moreover, the analysis used the maximum theoretical capacity/throughput to determine the effects from the increased throughput. The analysis provides a more conservative analysis because maximum theoretical capacity was used in the analysis instead of “sustainable practical capacity” which, as noted in Footnote 14 of the August 2015 Revised Notice of Preparation, is typically 75% of the maximum theoretical throughput according to marine terminal industry experts. Using the sustainable practical capacity, which is a more realistic scenario than maximum theoretical throughput, would have analyzed throughput at approximately 3,868 vehicles per acre


4-69 August 2016

ICF 172.14



per year, versus the project analysis of 5,157 vehicles per acre per year. This created a scenario that would be very hard to achieve given the high degree of efficiency that would need to be sustained. However, in doing so, it estimates the maximum number of cars that could be stored within a space over a year’s time. This maximum number would preclude the potential to store other cargo in this space. Furthermore, vehicles tend to have the largest number of employees associated with them compared to other cargo and a significant amount of activity associated with trucks and rail. Therefore, using the maximum number of cars possible is the most conservative scenario for the EIR to analyze and ensures impacts are not underestimated by replacing some cars with break bulk goods such as lumber. In addition, the maximum practical/theoretical capacity included an average dwell time that results in a vehicle turnaround time that is nearly twice as fast as the average dwell time/turnaround that occurred from 2008 to 2013 (see footnote “b” on Table 3-1 of the Draft EIR). Thus, the EIR presents a conservative, worst case scenario.


Comment I-4:

This comment requests clarification regarding whether or not potential new Sunday rail emissions were included in the analysis of the air quality impacts.

The air quality analysis includes the addition of a Sunday train. The methodology in estimating Sunday rail emissions is described in Section 4.1.4.1 of the Draft EIR and the emissions from Sunday train activity are shown in Table 4.1-9 of the Draft EIR.


Comment I-5:

This comment requests that emissions factors used in the analysis of emissions from ships should indicate what percentage of ships coming to NCMT are currently in compliance with the California Ocean Going Vessel Fuel Rule. If compliance is less than 100%, the


4-70 August 2016

ICF 172.14



comment requests that an estimated percentage be provided given the current level of compliance.

The analysis included in the Draft EIR assumes that 100% of both existing and project vessel calls comply with the California Ocean Going Vessel Fuel Rule (0.1% sulfur), which went into effect January 1, 2014. Pasha is required by law to comply with this rule and assuming non-compliance would be speculative. No changes are required in the Final EIR.

Comment I-6:

This comment requests that project-related ship emissions, including ship hotelling emissions from the additional 6.5 hours per ship call that are estimated from unloading additional vehicles, be included in the health risk analysis.

The health risk assessment (HRA) accounts from truck and rail activity which occur at distances much closer to receptors than vessel hotelling. Rail activity occurs within 500 feet of the closest receptor, while truck activity occurs approximately 300 feet from the closest receptors; the highest risks shown in the HRA are for those residences near train travel, particularly those residences near Civic Center Drive and Bay Marina Drive that are as close as 500 feet from rail activity. As shown in Table 4.1-11 of the Draft EIR, recreational/park receptors are much closer to truck and train emissions than vessel hotelling emissions and health risk from truck and train emissions is quite low (0.4 cases per million). There are no residences near vessel hotelling activities. Most vessels berth at B Pepper Park is located approximately 250 feet from Berth 24-11, but Berth 24-11 is only rarely used for barge-based lumber services. No vessels berthed at Berth 24-11 during the baseline period. Pepper Park is located approximately 700 feet from Berth 24-10, but exposure to hotelling emissions would be low given the distance and exposure periods assumed for park receptors and any risk would be far below risk thresholds and far below the train- and truck-related risk levels shown in Table 4.1-11. No changes are required in the Final EIR.


4-71 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Comment I-7:

This comment requests that MM-AQ-3 and MM-AQ-4 provide further clarification regarding vessel speed reduction in an effort to prevent double counting. Additionally, the comment requests that the Draft EIR clearly indicate how compliance will be verified and documented as well as what actions will be taken if compliance is not achieved. Lastly, the comment notes the NOx impact exceeds the significance level without full compliance with the vessel speed reduction measures. Therefore, compliance tracking and enforcement are key to the mitigation of NOx air quality impacts.

A point of clarification is that vessel speed reduction does not occur within the Bay, but rather occurs during transit within both the outer unrestricted speed zone and within the vessel speed reduction zone. Vessels travel at slow speeds while in the Bay for safety reasons; however, the reduction in speed is not associated with the District’s voluntary vessel speed reduction program.

As written, MM-AQ-3 (CAP compliance) and MM-AQ-4 (vessel speed reduction beyond CAP compliance) are mandatory measures that build upon the existing vessel speed reduction program that is currently voluntary. Reductions from MM-AQ-3 and MM-AQ-4 are not double counted and the reductions from MM-AQ-4 shown in Table 4.1-10 of the Draft EIR first take into account the reductions from MM-AQ-3 (see also the last line on Page 7 Appendix E; table entitled “NCMT Vessel Emissions Summary”). The current voluntary vessel speed reduction has been in effect since April 1, 2009, as part of the District’s Clean Air Program. As stated in MM-AQ-4, prior to annual vehicle throughput reaching 480,337 vehicles, the project applicant will be required to implement the prescribed vessel speed reduction measures to reduce the project’s net-new NOx emissions.

Currently, the District Planning & Green Port staff, through a third-party vendor, tracks vessel speeds at 20 nautical miles from Point Loma. Further, through the Automatic Identification System (AIS) system that is attached to each vessel, vessel speeds are tracked further out. Continued application of the current compliance tracking


4-72 August 2016

ICF 172.14



system, measured at the distance required in Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-4 and MM-GHG-3, will continue to be managed by District Planning & Green Port staff and will allow District staff to independently verify compliance with these mitigation measures. Mitigation measures MM-AQ-4 and MM-GHG-3 have been updated to provide further clarification on these measures and the District’s independent verification of compliance. Please see Chapter 3, Errata and Revisions, of this Final EIR. The clarification to these mitigation measures does not require recirculation as it is not significant new information and does not constitute a new significant impact because, pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, the new information added to the Final EIR does not deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the District has declined to implement.

Further, all mitigation measures will be included as special conditions in each coastal development permit issued for the project, and as such the District (or Coastal Commission at the District’s request) can require compliance with all special conditions through an enforcement action if non-compliance occurs.

Comment I-8:

This comment provides a list of potential mitigation measures that could reduce both NOx and DPM emissions.

Note that air quality impacts have been reduced to below a level of significance with the feasible mitigation measures identified in Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR and no additional mitigation measures are required.

The District already monitors trucking to ensure trucks that enter the terminal are in compliance with the ARB’s drayage truck rule. The drayage rule requires trucks that visit ports to be model year 2007 and newer until 2022 and 2010 and newer beyond year 2022. New trucks are built to be compliant with the heavy-duty greenhouse gas regulations (and recently adopted Phase 2 truck standards), which will improve fuel economy and reduce GHG emissions from trucks


4-73 August 2016

ICF 172.14



over time as those trucks enter the fleet. Because the District already monitors truck compliance with the ARB’s drayage truck rule, no changes to the Final EIR are warranted.

As noted in the Draft EIR, auto carriers are not currently required to comply with the ARB’s current at-berth regulation to control emissions from vessel idling at the terminal. The regulation only applies to vessels (container, cruise, and refrigerated cargo vessels) the ARB considered it to be cost-effective to include based on vessels that are frequent callers, spend a sufficient number of hours at berth, and have an ample power demand while hotelled (17 CCR 93118.3). The average at-berth power demand for auto carriers that call on NCMT (3,057 kilowatts [kw] and 15 hours at-berth) is far lower than average at-berth power demands for the new Dole refrigerated vessels that call on TAMT (11,320 kw and 89 hours at-berth). Shore power infrastructure at terminals is a significant investment and each eligible vessel would need to be retrofitted to plug in. Importantly, there are only two vessels considered “frequent callers” at NCMT (defined as six or more calls per year); the Jean Anne and Morning Marvel, which only account for 25 of the 230 calls in the baseline. Thus, retrofitting two vessels that would account for only 11% of all annual calls would not achieve significant reductions but would be a significant investment cost.

In addition, as the commenter notes, a barge-based Alternative Maritime Emission Control System (AMECS) provides a means to reduce emissions from vessels that cannot plug in. However, because mitigation prescribed in the EIR reduces air emissions to below the thresholds of significance, no further mitigation is required. Thus, even if the AMECS system were to be installed and the maximum reductions from an AMECS system were to be realized, conclusions in the analysis would remain unchanged and the impact from NOx would still be less than significant (after mitigation) as it is currently in the analysis.

As the commenter notes, demonstration projects are underway to test the viability of heavy-duty Class 8 electric trucks and Transpower manufactures trucks that are currently undergoing demonstration. As noted above in the response to Comment F-3, Pasha Automotive


4-74 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Services, the project applicant, was one of multiple District tenants that were recently awarded a grant from California Energy Commission (CEC) to purchase zero and near-zero terminal equipment. Pasha Automotive Services specifically was awarded grant funds for the operation of a Class-8 electric yard truck. The District will continue to monitor grant and demonstration opportunities to purchase zero and near-zero technologies, but at this point most equipment is not yet commercially available.

Finally, as the commenter notes, a truck stop could be established on NCMT as a way to further reduce emissions. However, establishment of a truck stop would require a large amount of space, which would further reduce throughput at NCMT. A reduction in throughput is not consistent with the project objectives. Furthermore, as stated in the Draft EIR, idling is not permitted on City of National City’s residential streets or within 100 feet of a school in the City. Therefore, establishment of a truck stop would not noticeably reduce air emissions. In addition, because mitigation prescribed in the EIR reduces air emissions to levels below the thresholds of significance, no further mitigation is required. Thus, even if a truck stop were to be established on NCMT, and additional emissions reductions were realized, conclusions in the analysis would remain unchanged and the impact from NOx would still be less than significant (after mitigation) as currently determined within the EIR. See the response to comment F-3 regarding the lead agency’s authority to require mitigation that has a nexus to an impact and is proportional to that impact. As such, no changes to the Final EIR are required.

Comment I-9:

In this comment, the commenter agrees with the significance determination of GHG impacts in the Draft EIR and provides comments related to impacts and mitigation measures that follow.

Comment noted. Responses to specific comments raised are provided below.

Comment I-10:

This comment requests clarification regarding whether or not


4-75 August 2016

ICF 172.14



potential new Sunday rail emissions were included in the analysis of the greenhouse gas emissions impacts.

See response to Comment I-4. The greenhouse gas analysis includes the addition of a Sunday train every work week of the year, which amounts to approximately 50 trains per year consistent with current operations. The methodology in estimating Sunday rail emissions is described in Section 4.2.4.1 of the Draft EIR and the emissions from Sunday train activity is shown in Tables 4.2-7 and 4.2-8 of the Draft EIR. No changes are required in the Final EIR.

Comment I-11:

This comment requests that the greenhouse gas emissions impact analysis incorporates both the proposed project and the Balanced Land Use Plan since both are needed to adequately assess the impact of Pasha import operations in the next decades over current conditions.

Please see the responses to Comment I-2 regarding cumulative air quality analysis associated with the Balanced Land Use Plan. Please note that greenhouse gas impacts are cumulative in nature. As analyzed on pages 5-11 to 5-14 of the Draft EIR, even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, the proposed project’s incremental contribution to cumulative GHG emissions and reduction targets and plans was determined to be cumulatively considerable for the post -2020 period.

Comment I-12:

This comment requests that MM-GHG-2 and MM-GHG-3 provide further clarification regarding vessel speed reduction in an effort to prevent double counting. Additionally, the comment requests that the Draft EIR clearly indicate how compliance will be verified and documented as well as what actions will be taken if compliance is not achieved.

See response to Comment I-7. Similar to MM-AQ-3 (CAP compliance) and MM-AQ-4 (vessel speed reduction beyond CAP compliance), MM-GHG-2 and MM-GHG-3 are mandatory measures that build upon the


4-76 August 2016

ICF 172.14



existing vessel speed reduction program that is currently voluntary. Reductions from MM-GHG-2 and MM-GHG-3 are not double counted and the reductions from MM-GHG-3 shown in Table 4.2-8 of the Draft EIR first take into account the reductions from MM-GHG-2 (see also the last line on Page 7 Appendix E; table entitled “NCMT Vessel Emissions Summary”). The currently voluntary vessel speed reduction has been ongoing since April 1, 2009, as part of the District’s Clean Air Program and the mitigation would use the same reporting to track compliance with the project’s mitigation measures. Continued application of the current compliance tracking system, measured at the distance required in Mitigation measures MM-AQ-4 and MM-GHG-3, will continue to be managed by Planning & Green Port staff and will allow District staff to independently verify compliance with these mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-4 and MM-GHG-3 have been updated to provide further clarification on these measures and the District’s independent verification of compliance. Please see Chapter 3, Errata and Revisions, of this Final EIR. The clarification to these mitigation measures does not require recirculation as it is not significant new information and does not constitute a new significant impact because, pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, the new information added to the Final EIR does not deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the District has declined to implement.

Further, all mitigation measures will be included as special conditions in each coastal development permit issued for the project, and as such, the District (or Coastal Commission at the District’s request) can require compliance with all special conditions through an enforcement action if non-compliance occurs.

Comment I-13:

This comment notes that MM-GHG-5 and MM-GHG-6 should be modified to indicate that if on-terminal renewable energy is not feasible, that such facilities be installed as close as possible to the terminal.


4-77 August 2016

ICF 172.14



The District welcomes partnerships with neighborhood or nearby jurisdictions in implementing renewable energy projects. The mitigation measures require the development of renewable projects onsite. If the onsite option is found infeasible, the District, at its discretion, will require a renewable project within the District’s jurisdiction or the purchase of credits from a reliable market. The comment is noted that the commenter would prefer the offsite option near the project site. However, because climate change is a global issue, localized mitigation is not required to reduce project-specific impacts. Accordingly, the mitigation measures as drafted are adequate.


Comment I-14:

This comment provided general information regarding the analysis of the significance of project GHG emissions on California’s GHG emission reduction goals. The comment indicates that it will be difficult for the proposed project to reach a reduction of 12,638 MT and recommends additional mitigation measures listed in the subsequent comment.

The commenter makes a couple of incorrect statements related to the CAP target and GHG analysis. First, the CAP goal for 2020 is not a 33% reduction from the CAP’s baseline (2006) year as the comment states, but is a 10% reduction from baseline, which translates to a 33% reduction from 2020 levels. Second, the commenter fails to acknowledge that the CAP is not a no-growth plan and that future year inventories take into account growth in terminal-related activity over time. Page 4.2-46 of the Draft EIR discusses consistency with the growth in vessel calls and terminal throughput projected through 2040, and the project would be consistent with these growth assumptions.


Comment I-15:


4-78 August 2016

ICF 172.14



This comment provides additional mitigation measures that would further reduce GHG emissions, including compliance with current air quality regulations, installation of shore power, electric or hybrid trucks, and a truck stop.

See response to Comment I-8. The suggested mitigation measures are the same as suggested in Comment I-8. Unlike air quality impacts, which were determined to be less than significant, post-2020 GHG emissions were determined to be significant and unavoidable. However, the rationale behind this conservative determination is important as it relates to the inability of additional feasible mitigation to result in a less-than-significant determination. Specifically, the project does meet post-2020 statewide targets after implementation of mitigation. However, as noted in the Draft EIR, impacts remain cumulatively considerable because it cannot be stated with certainty that the project would result in a reduction of emissions that would represent its fair share of the requisite reductions. This uncertainty means that consistency with overarching state targets alone may not be sufficiently robust to support a consistency argument. Thus, it was conservatively concluded that while the project would achieve reductions consistent with post-2020 executive order targets, impacts remain cumulatively considerable. As such, the significant and unavoidable determination is based on the lack of clear state guidance, not on the project’s inability to reduce the anticipated GHG emissions to a significant degree, which would be achieved with the proposed mitigation (approximately 66% reduction in GHG emissions by 2040). Hence, no matter what degree GHG emissions would be reduced through feasible mitigation measures, the significant and unavoidable conclusion would not change.

Regarding current air quality regulations for on-road trucks and cargo handling equipment, the District already monitors trucking to ensure trucks that enter the terminal are in compliance with the ARB’s drayage truck rule. Because the District already monitors truck compliance with the ARB’s drayage truck rule and compliance with greenhouse gas regulations (both Phase 1 and the recently adopted Phase 2 truck standards) require no action by the District, no changes to the Final EIR are warranted.


4-79 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Regarding shorepower or the use of AMECS for ships that call frequently at NCMT, there are only two vessels considered “frequent callers” at NCMT (defined as six or more calls per year); the Jean Anne and Morning Marvel, which only account for 25 of the 230 calls in the baseline. Retrofitting these two vessels would account for only 11% of all annual calls would not achieve significant GHG reductions. Additionally, shore power would require significant infrastructure improvements, including, but not limited to a potential substantiation, which is infeasible due to the lack of available of vacant land in the project area and operational constraints. AMECS are not technologically feasible as they are in their infancy and are not readably available in the San Diego region. Additionally, these retrofits and significant investment costs would not change the conclusions in the Draft EIR.

Regarding the use of electric or hybrid trucks, demonstration projects are underway to test the viability of heavy-duty Class 8 electric trucks and Transpower manufactures trucks that are currently undergoing demonstration. As noted above in the response to Comment I-8, Pasha Automotive Services was recently awarded grant funds for the operation of a Class-8 electric yard truck. The District will continue to monitor grant and demonstration opportunities to purchase zero and near-zero technologies, but at this point most equipment is not yet commercially available for long haul truck trips.

Regarding a truck stop on NCMT, establishment of such would require a large amount of space that would further reduce throughput at NCMT, which is not consistent with the project objectives. Further, as stated in the Draft EIR, idling is not permitted on City of National City’s residential streets or within 100 feet of a school in the City. In addition, GHG emissions from truck idling are minimal and merely changing the location of the idling would do nothing to reduce GHG emissions or reduce the severity of GHG-related impacts. Therefore, establishment of a truck stop would not noticeably reduce GHG emissions any further than with mitigation required to implement the project. No changes are required in the Final EIR.


4-80 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Comment I-16:

This comment acknowledges the fact that the project has impacts that could be cumulatively significant. Additionally, the comment recommends that estimates of the air quality, human health risk and GHG impacts of the Balanced Land Use Plan project, including construction and operational emissions, must be included in this analysis to the greatest extent feasible.

Please see response to Comment G-3 related to the cumulative impact analysis of the Balanced Land Use Plan.


Comment I-17:

This comment notes that an additional issue related to the cumulative significance of the project is that the project area is already identified as a high-ranking area in California’s screening model, CalEnviroScreen.

The CalEnviroScreen is a tool developed to help make funding decisions for money set aside for “environmental justice” areas. The tool developed by OEHHA takes into account more than pollution, such as social, economic and health issues. The CalEnviroScreen guidance and screening tool document states “a lead agency must determine independently whether a proposed project's impacts may be significant under CEQA based on the evidence before it, using its own discretion and judgment. The tool's results are not a substitute for this required analysis. Also, this tool considers some social, health and economic factors that may not be relevant when doing an analysis under CEQA. Finally, the tool’s output should not be used as a focused risk assessment of a given community or site. It cannot predict or quantify specific health risks or effects associated with cumulative exposures identified for a given community or individual.” Therefore, the commenter’s statement that “the project location is in an area with particularly high cumulative pollution burden as identified by CalEPA” is not accurate as, the CalEnviroScreen guidance and screening tool includes a variety of factors— not solely air


4-81 August 2016

ICF 172.14



pollution—that are not necessarily pertinent to a CEQA analysis and the tool is not intended to be used in risk assessments for a given community. Moreover, the tool, by the California Environmental Protection Agency’s own admission, is not intended to be used to quantify cumulative health risks or impacts. Because the County of San Diego’s thresholds are conservative, appropriate for the project’s location and supported by substantial evidence, no changes to the EIR are required.

As noted in Table 4.1-11 of the Draft EIR, the project would not result in incremental health risk at the maximum exposed residence. Moreover, as noted in comments above, the District is incorporating zero and near-zero technologies in many of its operations that would remove emissions from the region, and the state, through its sustainable freight vision, Climate Action Plan, and upcoming rule adoptions, will continue to fund projects that improve air quality and reduce the environmental impact burden on adjacent communities. No changes are required in the Final EIR.


4-82 August 2016

ICF 172.14



4.2.10 Letter J – Dixieline

Comment J-1:

This comment expresses its support for the project and indicates that they have no objections to the street closures included in the project.

No environmental concerns are raised in this comment; therefore, no further response is required.


4-83 August 2016

ICF 172.14

Chapter MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

MMRP.1 Purpose The purpose of this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is to ensure that the National City Marine Terminal (NCMT) Tank Farm Paving and Street Closures & Port Master Plan Amendment Project (“project” or “proposed project”) implements environmental mitigation, as required by the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed project. Those mitigation measures have been integrated into this MMRP. The MMRP provides a mechanism for monitoring the mitigation measures in compliance with the EIR, and general guidelines for the use and implementation of the monitoring program are described below.

This MMRP is written in accordance with California Public Resources Code 21081.6 and Section 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires the Lead Agency, for each project that is subject to CEQA, to adopt a reporting or monitoring program for changes made to the project, or conditions of approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment and to monitor performance of the mitigation measures included in any environmental document to ensure that implementation takes place. The San Diego Unified Port District (District) is the designated Lead Agency for the MMRP. The Lead Agency is responsible for review of all monitoring reports, enforcement actions, and document disposition. The Lead Agency will rely on information provided by a monitor as accurate and up to date and will field check mitigation measure status as required.

The District may modify how it will implement a mitigation measure, as long as the alternative means of implementing the mitigation still achieve the same or greater impact reduction. Copies of the measures shall be distributed to the participants of the monitoring effort to ensure that all parties involved have a clear understanding of the mitigation monitoring measures adopted.

MMRP.2 Format Mitigation measures applicable to the project include avoiding certain impacts altogether, minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, and/or requiring supplemental structural controls. Within this document, approval mitigation measures are organized and referenced by subject category. Each of the mitigation measures has a numerical reference. The following items are identified for each mitigation measure.

Mitigation Language and Numbering

Mitigation Timing

Methods for Monitoring and Reporting

Responsible Parties


MMRP-1 August 2016

ICF 172.14


Chapter MMRP. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

MMRP.3 Mitigation Language and Numbering Provides the language of the mitigation measure in its entirety.

MMRP.4 Mitigation Timing The mitigation measures required for the project will be implemented at various times before construction, during construction, prior to project completion, or during project operation.

MMRP.5 Methods for Monitoring and Reporting The MMRP includes the procedures for documenting and reporting mitigation implementation efforts. With the exception of mitigation measure MM-AQ-1, which is a measure to be implemented by the District, the project proponent, Pasha Automotive Services, is responsible for implementation of all mitigation measures. The District, however, has enforcement authority if the mitigation measures are not implemented, and in some circumstances, approval authority on which of the mitigation options are implemented.

MMRP.6 Responsible Parties For each mitigation measure, the party responsible for implementation, monitoring and reporting, and verifying successful completion of the mitigation measure is identified.


MMRP-2 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Mitigation Measures Timing and Methods Responsible Parties Air Quality MM-AQ-1: Update the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) and State Implementation Plan (SIP) with New Growth Projections. Prior to the San Diego Air Pollution Control District’s (SDAPCD’s) next triennial review of the RAQS, the District shall coordinate with the SDAPCD to amend the growth assumptions using the Port Master Plan Amendment. This includes changing the designation of Streets to Marine Related Industrial and adding a Marine Related Industrial Overlay to two parcels within the proposed project site.

Timing: Prior to the SDAPCD’s triennial review of the RAQS. Method: Update the RAQS and SIP with New Growth Projections in compliance with the Port Master Plan Amendment.

Implementation: District Monitoring and Reporting: District Verification: District

MM-AQ-2: Implement Diesel-Reduction Measures During Construction and Operations. The project proponent shall implement the following measures during project construction and operations. The project proponent shall limit all construction equipment,

drayage, and delivery truck idling times by shutting down equipment when not in use and reducing the maximum idling time to less than 3 minutes. The project proponent shall install clear signage regarding the limitation on idling time at the delivery driveway and loading areas and shall submit quarterly reports of violators to the San Diego Unified Port District. This measure shall be enforced by Pasha supervisors, and repeat violators shall be subject to penalties pursuant to California airborne toxics control measure 13 California Code of Regulations Section 2485. The project proponent shall submit evidence of the use of diesel reduction measures to the San Diego Unified Port District through annual reporting with the first report due one year from the date of project completion and each report due exactly one year after, noting all violations with relevant identifying information of the vehicles and drivers in violation of these measures.

The project proponent shall verify that all construction equipment is maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications. Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the project proponent shall verify that all

Timing: During project construction and operations. Method: Implement specific diesel-reduction measures.

Implementation: Project Proponent Monitoring and Reporting: District, Project Proponent Verification: District


MMRP-3 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Mitigation Measures Timing and Methods Responsible Parties equipment has been checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to admittance into any Pasha leasehold. The project proponent shall submit a report by the certified mechanic of the condition of the construction equipment to the San Diego Unified Port District prior to construction.

MM-AQ-3: Comply with San Diego Unified Port District Climate Action Plan Measures. Effective opening day, the project proponent shall implement the following measures to be consistent with the Climate Action Plan. Vessels shall comply with the San Diego Unified Port District’s

voluntary vessel speed reduction program, which targets 80% compliance.


No drive-through shall be implemented. Comply with Assembly Bill 939 by recycling at least 50% of solid

waste. This measure shall be applied during construction and operation of the proposed project.

Light fixtures shall be replaced with lower energy bulbs such as fluorescent, Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs), or Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFLs).

Timing: Opening day of first project component to be implemented. Method: Implement specific measures in order to achieve compliance with the District’s CAP.


MM-AQ-4: Every quarter following approval of the first real estate agreement or issuance of the first Coastal Development Permit associated with the project, whichever occurs first, the project proponent shall provide a report of the annual vehicle throughput to-date, and the projected total throughput for the following 6 months to the District’s Planning & Green Port Department. Prior to the annual vehicle throughput reaching 480,337 vehicles, which is an increase of 119,065 vehicles over the 2013 vehicle throughput total (361,372 vehicles), the project proponent shall implement vessel speed reduction measures to reduce the project’s net-new nitrogen oxide emissions. The program shall require that 90% of the [Pasha Automotive Services customer] vessels calling at National City Marine Terminal reduce their speeds to 12 knots starting at 40 nautical miles from Point Loma within the San Diego Air Basin. To be compliant with that speed limit, the vessel’s weighted average speed shall be 12

Timing: Submit vehicle throughput report every quarter following approval of the first real estate agreement or issuance of the first Coastal Development Permit associated with the project, whichever occurs first. Prior to annual vehicle throughput reaching 480,337 vehicles, implement vessel speed reduction measures, monitor and record vessel speeds and maintain monthly records, and submit compliance report annually to the District indicating the monthly vessel totals and compliance percentage for each quarter. Method: Implement vessel speed reduction



MMRP-4 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Mitigation Measures Timing and Methods Responsible Parties knots or less from the 40 nautical mile latitude and longitude positions on each respective route to/from Point Loma. Implementation of this vessel speed reduction program will be included in all new real estate agreements and Coastal Development Permit(s) associated with this project. The Project Applicant will record each inbound and outbound vessel move for compliance, and monthly records will be maintained. An annual report will be submitted to the District indicating the monthly vessel totals, and compliance percentage for the quarter. Evidence of implementation and compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the District’s Planning & Green Port Department on an annual basis through 2040 (the end year of Pasha’s Terminal Operating Agreement). The District will verify compliance through analysis of Automatic Identification System (AIS) data or by requesting a vessel’s Electronic Chart Display Identification System (ECDIS) log from the captain.

measures to reduce the project’s net-new nitrogen oxide emissions. Monitor and record vessel speeds and maintain monthly records. Provide evidence of implementation and compliance with this mitigation measure.

MM-AQ-5: Replace Gasoline/Diesel Passenger Van with Electric Passenger Van. Prior to January 1, 2020, the project proponent shall purchase and operate an electric passenger shuttle to be used for yard movement associated with vehicle storage operations.

Timing: Prior to January 1, 2020. Method: Purchase and operate an electric passenger shuttle to be used for yard movement associated with vehicle storage operations.

Implementation: Project Proponent Monitoring and Reporting: Project Proponent, District Verification: District

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change, and Energy Use MM-GHG-1: Implement Diesel-Reduction Measures During Construction and Operations. The project proponent shall implement the following measures during project construction and operations. i. The project proponent shall limit all construction equipment,

drayage, and delivery truck idling times by shutting down equipment when not in use and reducing the maximum idling time to less than 3 minutes. The project proponent shall install clear signage regarding the limitation on idling time at the delivery driveway and loading areas and shall submit quarterly reports of violators to the San Diego Unified Port District. This measure shall be enforced by Pasha supervisors, and repeat

Timing: During project construction and operations. Method: Implement diesel-reduction measures during construction and operations.



MMRP-5 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Mitigation Measures Timing and Methods Responsible Parties violators shall be subject to penalties pursuant to California airborne toxics control measure 13 California Code of Regulations Section 2485. The project proponent shall submit evidence of the use of diesel reduction measures to the San Diego Unified Port District through annual reporting with the first report due 1 year from the date of project completion and each report due exactly 1 year after, noting all violations with relevant identifying information of the vehicles and drivers in violation of these measures.


MM-GHG-2: Comply with San Diego Unified Port District Climate Action Plan Measures. Effective opening day, the project proponent shall implement the following measures to be consistent with the Climate Action Plan. Vessels shall comply with the San Diego Unified Port District’s

voluntary vessel speed reduction program, which targets 80% compliance.


No drive-through shall be allowed. Assembly Bill 939 shall be complied with by recycling at least

50% of solid waste. This measure shall be applied during construction and operation of the proposed project.


Timing: Opening Day of first project component to be implemented. Method: Implement specific measures in order to achieve compliance with the District’s CAP.



MMRP-6 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Mitigation Measures Timing and Methods Responsible Parties MM-GHG-3: Implement Vessel Speed Reduction Program Beyond Climate Action Plan Compliance. Every quarter following approval of the first real estate agreement or issuance of the first Coastal Development Permit associated with the project, whichever occurs first, the project proponent shall provide a report of the annual vehicle throughput to date, and the projected total throughput for the following 6 months to the San Diego Unified Port District’s Planning & Green Port Department. Prior to the annual vehicle throughput reaching 480,337 vehicles, which is an increase of 119,065 vehicles over the 2013 vehicle throughput total (361,372 vehicles), the project proponent shall implement vessel speed reduction measures to reduce the project’s net-new greenhouse gas emissions. The program shall require that 90% of the [Pasha Automotive Services customer] vessels calling at the National City Marine Terminal reduce their speeds to 12 knots starting at 40 nautical miles from Point Loma within the San Diego Air Basin. To be compliant with that speed limit, the vessel’s weighted average speed shall be 12 knots or less from the 40 nautical mile latitude and longitude positions on each respective route to/from Point Loma. Implementation of this vessel speed reduction program will be included in all new real estate agreements and Coastal Development Permit(s) associated with this project. The Project Applicant will record each inbound and outbound vessel move for compliance, and monthly records will be maintained. An annual report will be submitted to the District indicating the monthly vessel totals, and compliance percentage for the quarter. Evidence of implementation and compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the San Diego Unified Port District’s Planning & Green Port Department on an annual basis through 2040 (the end year of Pasha’s Terminal Operating Agreement). The District will verify compliance through analysis of Automatic Identification System (AIS) data or by requesting a vessel’s Electronic Chart Display Identification System (ECDIS) log from the captain.

Timing: Submit vehicle throughput report every quarter following approval of the first real estate agreement or issuance of the first Coastal Development Permit associated with the project, whichever occurs first. Prior to annual vehicle throughput reaching 480,337 vehicles, implement vessel speed reduction measures, monitor and record vessel speeds and maintain monthly records, and submit compliance report annually to the District indicating the monthly vessel totals, and compliance percentage for each quarter. Method: Implement vessel speed reduction measures to reduce the project’s net-new nitrogen oxide emissions. Monitor and record vessel speeds and maintain monthly records. Provide evidence of implementation and compliance with this mitigation measure.



MMRP-7 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Mitigation Measures Timing and Methods Responsible Parties MM-GHG-4: Replace Gasoline/Diesel Passenger Van with Electric Passenger Van. Prior to January 1, 2020, the project proponent shall purchase and operate an electric passenger shuttle to be used for yard movement associated with vehicle storage operations.

Timing: Prior to January 1, 2020. Method: Purchase and operate an electric passenger shuttle to be used for yard movement.

Implementation: Project Proponent Monitoring and Reporting: Project Proponent Verification: District

MM-GHG-5: Implement a Renewable Energy Project or Purchase the Equivalent Greenhouse Gas Offsets from a California Air Resources Board Approved Registry. The project proponent shall incorporate renewable energy into the leasehold or other areas within the San Diego Unified Port District or purchase greenhouse gas reduction credits as specified herein to achieve requisite reductions to meet the 2020 reduction target. This mitigation measure shall achieve at least 4,351 megawatt-hours per year (MWh/year) of renewable energy or the project proponent may purchase the equivalent amount of greenhouse gas offsets—an amount of 6,159 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e). This requirement would result in an annual reduction of 1,231.8 MTCO2e by 2020 and running through the life of the project. In order to achieve 2020 annual reduction target of 1,231.8 MTCO2e, the project proponent shall install and operate a renewable energy project that would achieve at least 4,351 MWh/year of renewable energy. Otherwise, the project proponent shall purchase the equivalent amount of greenhouse gas offsets, which is 6,159 MTCO2e. The renewable energy project may be submitted to the San Diego Unified Port District as late as January 1, 2018 (no later, but may be submitted sooner) in order to consider the latest advancements in energy technology and future regulatory requirements and must be operational by January 1, 2020. Because it is unknown how “solar ready” the available rooftop areas are within the leasehold, once at the design phase, the renewable energy project may be determined infeasible. Should this determination of infeasibility be made by the San Diego Unified Port District after considering evidence submitted by the project proponent related to any structural limitations (i.e., the rooftops cannot support a renewable energy system), then two additional

Timing: Submit to the San Diego Unified Port District as late as January 1, 2018 (no later, but may be submitted sooner) and must be operational by January 1, 2020. Alternatively, purchase of credits by January 1, 2020. Method: (1) install and operate a renewable energy project that achieves at least 4,351 MWh/year of renewable energy to offset 1,232 MTCO2e per year Or (2) purchase the equivalent amount of greenhouse gas offsets, which is 6,159 MTCO2e Or (3) build the renewable energy project off site (i.e., at a location not within the proponent leaseholds but within the San Diego Unified Port District’s jurisdiction that achieves a 1,232 MTCO2e annual reduction. While onsite renewable is preferred, if it is found infeasible by the District, a



MMRP-8 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Mitigation Measures Timing and Methods Responsible Parties options are available. The San Diego Unified Port District shall either require the renewable energy project to be built off site (i.e., at a location not within the proponent leaseholds but within the San Diego Unified Port District’s jurisdiction) or shall require the proponent to purchase the equivalent amount of greenhouse gas offsets from sources listed on the American Carbon Registry and/or the Climate Action Reserve (or any other such registry approved by the California Air Resources Board). The selected option or a combination must achieve a total annual reduction of 1,231.8 MTCO2e, which would amount to 6,159 MTCO2e over 5 years (relative to the projected San Diego Gas and Electric power mix in 2020).

combination of onsite, offsite, or purchase of credits may be implemented to achieve the overall reduction requirements for 2020.

MM-GHG-6: Implement a Renewable Energy Project or Purchase the Equivalent Greenhouse Gas Offsets from a California Air Resources Board Approved Registry. The project proponent shall incorporate renewable energy into the leasehold or other areas within the San Diego Unified Port District or purchase greenhouse gas reduction credits as specified herein to achieve requisite reductions to meet the 2030 and 2040 reduction targets. This mitigation measure shall combine with MM-GHG-5 to achieve at least 12,095 megawatt-hours per year (MWh/year) of renewable energy or the project proponent may purchase the equivalent amount of greenhouse gas offsets—an initial amount of 14,262 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) by 2030 and a final amount of 25,554 MTCO2e by 2040. This requirement would result in an annual reduction of 1,462.2 MTCO2e by 2030 and 2,555.4 MTCO2e by 2040. 2030 Reduction Requirement. In order to achieve 2030 annual reduction target of 1,462.2 MTCO2e, the project proponent shall install and operate a renewable energy project that, combined with MM-GHG-5, would achieve at least 6,750 MWh/year of renewable energy (i.e., First Phase). Otherwise, the project proponent shall purchase the equivalent amount of greenhouse gas offsets, which is 7,131 MTCO2e by January 1, 2025. The First Phase of the renewable energy project may be submitted to the San Diego Unified Port District as late as January 1, 2023 (but no later) in order to consider the latest advancements in energy technology and future regulatory requirements, but may be submitted sooner and must be operational by January 1, 2025.

Timing (for 2030 GHG Reduction): Submittal of the renewable energy project by January 1, 2023, and operational by January 1, 2025. Alternatively, purchase of credits by January 1, 2025. Method (for 2030 GHG Reduction): (1) install and operate a renewable energy project that, combined with MM-GHG-5, would achieve at least 6,750 MWh/year of renewable energy to offset 1,462 MTCO2e per year Or (2) purchase the equivalent amount of greenhouse gas offsets, which is 7,131 MTCO2e Or (3) build the renewable energy project off site (i.e., at a location not within the proponent leaseholds but within the San Diego Unified Port District’s jurisdiction)



MMRP-9 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Mitigation Measures Timing and Methods Responsible Parties 2040 Reduction Requirement. In order to achieve 2040 annual reduction target of 2,555.4 MTCO2e, the project proponent shall install and operate a renewable energy project that, combined with MM-GHG-5 and the First Phase, would achieve at least 12,095 MWh/year of renewable energy (i.e., Second Phase). Otherwise, the project proponent shall purchase the equivalent amount of greenhouse gas offsets, which is 25,554 MTCO2e by January 1, 2030. The Second Phase of the renewable energy project may be submitted to the San Diego Unified Port District as late as December 31, 2028 (but no later) in order to consider the latest advancements in energy technology and future regulatory requirements, but may be submitted sooner and must be operational by January 1, 2030. Because it is unknown how “solar ready” the available rooftop areas are within the leasehold, once at the design phase, the renewable energy project may be determined infeasible. Should this determination of infeasibility be made by the San Diego Unified Port District after considering evidence submitted by the project proponent related to any structural limitations (i.e., the rooftops cannot support a renewable energy system), then two additional options are available. The San Diego Unified Port District shall either require the renewable energy project to be built off site (i.e., at a location not within the proponent leaseholds but within the San Diego Unified Port District’s jurisdiction) or shall require the proponent to purchase the equivalent amount of greenhouse gas offsets from sources listed on the American Carbon Registry and/or the Climate Action Reserve (or any other such registry approved by the California Air Resources Board). The selected option or a combination of the above-mentioned options must achieve a total annual reduction of 1,426.2 MTCO2e beginning on January 1, 2025 and lasting until December 31, 2029. Beginning on January 1, 2030, the annual reductions must increase to 2,555.4 MTCO2e until the end of the project life in 2040. The aggregated annual reductions between 2025 and 2030 would amount to 7,131 MTCO2e (relative to the projected San Diego Gas and Electric power mix in 2030) and would increase to an aggregated amount of 25,554 MTCO2e between 2030 and 2040 (relative to the projected San Diego Gas and Electric power mix in 2040).

that achieves a 1,462 MTCO2e annual reduction. While onsite renewable is preferred, if it is found infeasible by the District, a combination of onsite, offsite, or purchase of credits may be implemented to achieve the overall reduction requirements for 2030. Timing (for 2040 GHG Reductions): Submittal of the renewable energy project by December 31, 2028, and operational by January 1, 2030. Alternatively, purchase of credits by January 1, 2030. Method (for 2040 GHG Reduction): (1) install and operate a renewable energy project that, combined with MM-GHG-5 and the First Phase, would achieve at least 12,095 MWh/year of renewable energy to offset 2,555 MTCO2e per year Or (2) Purchase the equivalent amount of greenhouse gas offsets, which is 25,554 MTCO2e Or (3) build the renewable energy project off site (i.e., at a location not within the proponent leaseholds but within the San Diego Unified Port District’s jurisdiction) that achieves a 2,555 MTCO2e annual


MMRP-10 August 2016

ICF 172.14



Mitigation Measures Timing and Methods Responsible Parties reduction. While onsite renewable is preferred, if it is found infeasible by the District, a combination of onsite, offsite, or purchase of credits may be implemented to achieve the overall reduction requirements for 2040.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM-HAZ-1: Prepare a Site-Specific Site Safety and Health Plan to Address Potential Burn Ash Presence and Other Contaminants. Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, a site-specific site safety and health plan (prepared in accordance with CFR 1910.120 Appendix C) and a soil and groundwater management plan (prepared in accordance with CCR Title 22 and Title 27) is required to ensure that all soil disturbed or excavated at the site is screened for the presence of hazardous materials and appropriately characterized and disposed of or reused on site if determined to be suitable for reuse. As part of the site-specific safety and health plan, air monitoring shall be required to ensure fugitive emissions from any grading activities will not pose a risk to human health. These plans would be submitted to the District’s Planning & Green Port Department, and approval would be required prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities. The plans shall specify that in the event that indicators of burn ash material are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work shall cease and the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health’s Local Enforcement Agency shall be notified immediately and prior to any continuation of ground or soil work.

Timing: Prior to any ground-disturbing activities. Method: Prepare and implement a site-specific safety and health plan as well as a soil and groundwater management plan to be consistent with CFR 1910.120 and CCR Title 22 and Title 27, respectively.

Implementation: Project proponent Monitoring and Reporting: Qualified agent, approved by the District, Project Proponent Verification: District

Noise-Vibration MM-NOI-1: Notify Trucks from NCMT and Related Operations that Idling on Residential Streets is Illegal. Signs shall be prominently posted, at all truck entrances and exits serving the various project sites (or otherwise placed strategically for maximum awareness), stating that truck parking and/or idling is prohibited on any residential street or within 100 feet of any school in the City of National City. Such prohibition shall also be included as part of any

Timing: Prior to opening day of first project component. Method: Post signs at all truck entrances and exits serving the various project sites.



MMRP-11 August 2016

ICF 172.14

San Diego Unified Port District Chapter MMRP. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Mitigation Measures Timing and Methods Responsible Parties future agreements (e.g., short-term use permit) or Coastal Development Permits related to the proposed project. Transportation and Traffic MM-TRA-1. Reconfigure I-Lot to Accommodate 455 Striped Parking Spaces. Concurrent with construction on any project component or issuance of a short-term agreement/new real estate agreement for the former Weyerhaeuser site, whichever is earlier, the project proponent shall restripe I-Lot to accommodate 455 standard vehicle parking spaces. Once completed, evidence indicating the completion of the striping shall be provided by the contractor or Project Applicant to the District, and the District shall be permitted to confirm the parking area is being used as designed and consistent with this mitigation measure. Should the I-Lot be used for anything other than employee parking, such as vehicle/cargo storage, the project proponent shall present a parking study, created by a qualified transportation planner or engineer, to the District showing that such uses are not resulting in a shortage of employee parking within the National City Marine Terminal boundaries and no employees are parking outside the terminal as a consequence.

Timing: Concurrent with the construction on any project component, or issuance of a short-term agreement/new real estate agreement for the former Weyerhaeuser site, whichever occurs first.

Method: Restripe I-Lot to accommodate 455 standard vehicle parking spaces

Implementation: Project Proponent

Monitoring and Reporting: District, Project Proponent

Verification: District


MMRP-12 August 2016

ICF 172.14

final environmental impact report national city …...icf international. 2016. volume 1: final...

Documents